From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: bug#16734: Default value org-odt-data-dir (in Emacs) makes no sense Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:53:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87r45wf0n9.fsf__10726.8525673591$1395388488$gmane$org@bzg.ath.cx> References: <0d8utf7ox0.fsf__31384.3091288165$1392256859$gmane$org@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46693) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQuHJ-0004Me-Qk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 03:54:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WQuHD-0000IX-Qf for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 03:54:09 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0d8utf7ox0.fsf__31384.3091288165$1392256859$gmane$org@fencepost.gnu.org> (Glenn Morris's message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:59:55 -0500") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Cc: 16734@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Glenn, Glenn Morris writes: > Package: emacs,org-mode > Version: 24.3.50 > > This refers to the version of Org mode in Emacs trunk. > > ./src/emacs -Q -l ox-odt > C-h v org-odt-data-dir > -> Its value is "/usr/share/emacs/etc/org" > > This value is hard-coded (and autoloaded; why?) in org-version.el. > This value makes no sense. > For Emacs, it should be something based on data-directory. Yes. > This was pointed out before in some moderately lengthy discussion: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-10/msg00002.html > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-10/msg00070.html For now we will keep `org-odt-data-dir' in org-version.el that comes with Org separate distributions (git, tar.gz and zip archives.) > (In general, the setting of directory-related variables in ox-odt seems > rather over-engineered.) Indeed, we need to revisit this. -- Bastien