Hi James,
I have updated the one-pager. Please let me know your comments.
Thanks,
Satya
James Carlson wrote:
> James Gates writes:
>
>> But since we don't have to accommodate multiple versions of Slony, we
>> could locate the man pages in /usr/share/man (we would just need to
>> supply --mandir=/usr/share/man to 'configure').
>>
>
> OK; that'd help.
>
>
>>>> /usr/postgres/slony/share/slony1_base.sql
>>>>
>>> What does "share" mean again? :-/
>>>
>>>
>> Typically "share" directories are used for architecture independent
>> (shared) files. In this case SQL scripts.
>>
>> Did you have an issue with this location?
>>
>
> Yes. My rather oblique comment was apparently missed here.
>
> The reason /usr/share exists is that it can be a mount point for
> shared (i.e., NFS) data. Thus, the right way to use 'share' is to
> create a subdirectory under that one special mount point (such as
> /usr/share/foo/) rather than creating your own /usr/foo/share/ off in
> the hinterlands. The result of having multiple 'share' distinct
> directories would be absurd; you'd be asking administrators to set up
> each one as a separate mount point, which of course they're not going
> to do.
>
> It's essentially the same reason why you shouldn't create "/foo/usr"
> but instead "/usr/foo", or why you shouldn't have "/foo/etc" but
> instead "/etc/foo". The apparent desire among those creating their
> own private file system hierarchy is to "isolate" the subsystem from
> everything else. I'm asserting that this desire itself is incorrect;
> the software should be integrated using the system's file system
> semantics, not in opposition.
>
> Without the chance of a separate mount point, the meaning is just
> plain lost, which is why I wrote that comment. The 'share' directory
> turns into a cargo cult. We ship these directories hoping that the
> planes will return.
>
>
>> <PREFIX>/
>> bin
>> etc
>> lib
>> man
>> share
>>
>
> The rest is probably a bit wobbly (a private xxx/etc? what's wrong
> with /etc and how is <PREFIX>/etc writable in a zone?), but that
> 'share' is just plain wrong, no matter how many others may have been
> led down this path or how strongly autoconf believes in it.
>
> In the grand scheme of things, I suppose it doesn't matter (what's one
> more mistaken directory in a sea of others?), but as a review comment:
> don't do that.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080708/98ac6eae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: slony_onepager_new.txt
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080708/98ac6eae/attachment.txt>
