On 2014-12-12 11:27:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > We already have src/bin/; the mixture of "src/" and "bin/" predates us. > Of course, the stuff we keep in there is not binaries but source code > that produces binaries. > > As for src/sbin/, we wouldn't install anything to the system's > /usr/sbin/ of course, only /usr/bin/, just like the stuff in src/bin/. > But it would be slightly more clear what we keep in each src/ subdir.
I think sbin is a spectactularly bad name, let's not go there. If anything, make it srvbin or something like that. > I think our current src/bin/ is a misnomer, but it seems late to fix > that. In a greenfield I think we could have "src/clients/" and > "src/srvtools/" or something like that, and everything would install to > /usr/bin. Then there would be no doubt where to move each program from > contrib. Maybe. We could just do that now - git's file change tracking is good enough for that kind of move. > Maybe there is no point to all of this and we should just move it all to > src/bin/ as originally proposed, which is simpler anyway. +1. Packagers already don't use the current boundaries for packaging... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
