Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>I must confess I think this scheme is overkill - I can't think
>>of a use case where one would want a relocatable installation
>>which would any pattern other than the one we are thinking of
>>for the windows binary installer. Are we taking flexibility too
>>far?
>>
>>
>
>This code might be used on Unix too.
>
>
>
I know. I can't think of a Unix situation where you would want anything
else either.
If you want it relocatable, I would think that you would want
movable-root/
/bin
/lib
/share
/whatever
and then you could just pick up that root and put it somewhere else and
it would still work, Windows or Unix, it wouldn't matter, and you
wouldn't break anything else. I guess using some other scheme you could
pick up the various bits from under, say, /usr and put them in
/usr/local, but it strikes me as being very messy and likely to be error
prone.
Maybe it's just a failure of my imagination.
cheers
andrew
