On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:32:29 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi all, I wondering about load-path bloat and whether it matters. > http://bugs.debian.org/189754 said that when help was listed about a > function of mine, the user couldn't click on the function name to > move point to the source code. > That's because I add the compiled lisp directory to to load-path, > but not the directory of the sources themselves. I add both; the compiled ones at the front of the laod path, and the sources at the tail, like so: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; (if (fboundp 'debian-pkg-add-load-path-item) (setq load-path (debian-pkg-add-load-path-item (concat "/usr/share/" (symbol-name debian-emacs-flavor) "/site-lisp/gnus"))) (setq load-path (cons (concat "/usr/share/" (symbol-name debian-emacs-flavor) "/site-lisp/gnus") load-path))) ;; Make sure that the uncompiled files are also in the ;; laod-path, though near the end. (setq load-path (nconc load-path (list "/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/gnus/lisp"))) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; I see no reason to bloat the archives with yet another -el package, especially since the packages ship with all the required .el files anyway. manoj -- Xerox does it again and again and again and ... Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
