postgresql83, binaries, and paths?

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Jul 27, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Jay Levitt wrote:
> A reasonable intention.  But then why bother linking psql (and only  
> psql),
> and under a name where nobody's looking for it?

Because 'normal' (non-macports) installs of postgres usually install  
into their own directory, so people using postgres often add the  
postgres specific bin/ directory to their path.

Using the macports postgres83 would be similar, and having the link  
there means you can just type 'psql' after munging your path.

> I realize the answer to all these questions may be "because that's  
> the way
> someone wrote it once"; in that case, pretend I'm asking "would a  
> patch to
> change that be welcomed/a good idea/grudgingly accepted/treated as a
> maternal-lineage insult?"

It's usually up to the maintainer to determine if a patch is a good  
idea or not (or how any ideas it has can be incorporated into the port).

[My personal opinion is that adding to the end of $PATH is a better  
idea, that we should use paths.d, and that we should deal with any  
problems this causes where a package picks up a system tool where we  
would rather have it pick up a macports tool - but obviously other  
people have different opinions :) ]

--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
+========================================================+



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20080728/40c77379/attachment.bin