Re: Load path and custom compiling cvs on Debian

[Richard G Riley]

Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> writes:

> Kevin Rodgers <kevin.d.rodgers@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> John Wells wrote:
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> I've learned that anti-aliased fonts don't appear to be supported yet
>>> on 22, and I've also found that compiling the unicode branch out of
>>> CVS enables this support.
>>>
>>> I've done the compile and it works great...fonts look wonderful.
>>> However, the problem is the custom compiled emacs doesn't find all my
>>> pre-installed Debian packaged modes and utilities, like ecb,
>>> ruby-mode, etc.
>>>
>>> It appears that the dpkg's put the various installed files in:
>>>
>>> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp
>>> /usr/share/emacs22/site-lisp
>>>
>>> Then, when I start emacs, these are already there, loaded.
>>>
>>> Can someone tell me what configurations settings I need to do to make
>>> these work with my custom compile? Is it a ./configure option? Is it
>>> some central emacs config file? Can I inspect where my custom compile
>>> is looking for modes easily through emacs itself?
>>
>> `C-h v load-path RET' will show you the directories that Emacs searches
>> for files to load.  Try `C-h r' to browse the Emacs manual, then `i load
>> RET' to find out the details about how that works.
>>
>> Here's what you should put in your .emacs file to allow the packages
>> from Debian to be found:
>>
>> (add-to-list 'load-path "/usr/share/emacs22/site-lisp" t)
>> (add-to-list 'load-path "/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp" t)
>>
>>> Sorry for so many questions...I'm learning quickly, but there's a lot to 
>>> learn!
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> -- 
>
> You also need to modify startup.el so that it loads the config stuff in
> /etc/emacs/site-start.d and /etc/emacs22/site-start.d, otherwise, emacs
> will find the packages, but not the necessary stuff done to config/ and set
> them up.
>
> Tim

Do the snapshot repositories here include the aa?

http://emacs.orebokech.com/


My emacs fonts certainly look good but maybe I'm just too used to it
without aa?!? It's marked as "emacs 23" anyway and according to here
http://g33k.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/gnu-emacs-with-xft-goodness/
the unicode branch was to become emacs 23.