From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chong Yidong <cyd@gnu.org>
Subject: bug#10125: 24.0.91; package.el (org): Macros in tar packages & order
 of byte compilation
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:07:40 +0800
Message-ID: <87r50w47o3.fsf__6769.59526394985$1322253427$gmane$org@gnu.org>
References: <81pqgh90sp.fsf@gmail.com> <E1RTYzR-00039k-Q6@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<81ipm9l9kd.fsf@gmail.com> <v062i9tk0d.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<hffwhdqov3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35798)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1RTwS7-0007Za-6r
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:08:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1RTwS1-0005aN-8d
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:08:31 -0500
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.10125.B10125.132223017032275@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <hffwhdqov3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (Glenn Morris's message of
	"Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:53:04 -0500")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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 <rgm@gnu.org>
Cc: 10125@debbugs.gnu.org, stelian.iancu@gmail.com, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Glenn Morris wrote:
>
>> fresh Emacs instance. There's no reason the "package manager" could not
>> spawn a separate Emacs in batch-mode as a sub-job to do the compilation.
>
> Very lightly tested version:

This uses the Emacs executable on the exec path, which might not be the
correct one.

I'm wary of making such a fundamental change to package.el without first
exploring possible package-specific work-arounds.  Could problematic
packages use an eval-when-compile form to forcibly load the correct
version of the required file?