postgresql83, binaries, and paths?
Daniel J. Luke
dluke at geeklair.net
Mon Jul 28 08:00:21 PDT 2008
On Jul 27, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Jay Levitt wrote:
> A reasonable intention. But then why bother linking psql (and only
> 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...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20080728/40c77379/attachment.bin
More information about the macports-dev