On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: > No dia 8 de Janeiro de 2011 16:38, Philip Brown <[email protected]> escreveu: >>... >> By that I mean [naturally generated there by the program's >> config/installer, if we do nothing but specify >> --prefix=/opt/csw/subprefix] > > I know what you mean, I was asking why you use the installer as a guideline.
I go by the principle that if something is not constrained by our standards, it should then match up what a user of the program expects if they install it themselves. ie:"normal defaults for the program". > As an OpenCSW user, I perceive using /opt/csw at times, and > /opt/csw/mysql5 at times, and /opt/csw/postgresql at times, as an > inconsistent handling of files. It's enough hassle to integrate one > prefix into your system - you need to set PATH, and think about that > prefix potentially affecting shared library linking in your programs, > about conflicting paths, etc. yes it is a hassle... which is why we have symlinks :) We are probably long past time of implementing "alternatives" links for mysql and postgres, into /opt/csw/bin, at least for the client program. > Standardized linking is one of the goals, and symlinks meet that goal, > that's right. A bigger goal is to achieve a standard filesystem > layout. > > The reason to insist is that our file placement policy is not "place > your files wherever you like, just make symlinks at the right > locations". certainly that is not appropriate. I suppose it would be helpful to explicitly call out in this discussion, "programs should not be configured with any prefix other than /opt/csw, unless there is a compelling requirement to have a subprefix". (such as an ongoing need to support more than one version of a particular program installed at a time) >> I myself have done a quickie "hmm, wonder how much stuff is under >> there? du -k /some/prefix" and then been **really annoyed** when I >> found out later, that not everything was in there. > > You must be easy to annoy... I don't know what would be your goal > behind "du -k /some/prefix", but I suspect it would be hard to defend > as a basis for OpenCSW filesystem policy. If there's any prefix you > might be interested in measuring, it's /opt/csw. Any other /opt/csw > based custom prefixes will never be self-sufficient. its not about being self-sufficient. it was most likely about typical sysadmin methodologies in deciding what to clean up. "Hmm.. this filesystem is way too full. what can I get rid of cleanly? lets run du -k" Then when you get obvious "big directories" that you are not using, you can remove them by "appropriate" means, which may still be "pkgrm". There's probably other reasons lurking... i think I dont remember the full reasons. > > The following statement still stands: > > The fact that some users of a common resource are special, doesn't > mean that the resource should be. sorry, I dont think I fully understand what you are saying there. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
