Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 03:13:44PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 12/12/2014 03:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > >Sounds good. We already separate server and client programs in the docs,
> > >and packagers put them in different packages too. This should make
> > >packagers' life a little bit easier in the long run.
> >
> > src/sbin might not be a good name for the directory, though. We're
> > not going to install the programs in /usr/sbin, are we? Maybe
> > src/server-bin and src/client-bin.
>
> I am confused by the above because you are mixing /src and /bin. If we
> install the binaries in new directories, that is going to require
> multiple adjustments to $PATH --- that doesn't seem like a win, and we
> only have 25 binaries in pgsql/bin now (my Debian /usr/bin has 2306
> binaries). I assume I am misunderstanding something.
We already have src/bin/; the mixture of "src/" and "bin/" predates us.
Of course, the stuff we keep in there is not binaries but source code
that produces binaries.
As for src/sbin/, we wouldn't install anything to the system's
/usr/sbin/ of course, only /usr/bin/, just like the stuff in src/bin/.
But it would be slightly more clear what we keep in each src/ subdir.
I think our current src/bin/ is a misnomer, but it seems late to fix
that. In a greenfield I think we could have "src/clients/" and
"src/srvtools/" or something like that, and everything would install to
/usr/bin. Then there would be no doubt where to move each program from
contrib.
Maybe there is no point to all of this and we should just move it all to
src/bin/ as originally proposed, which is simpler anyway.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
