Sriram Natarajan wrote: > > > Sunanda Menon wrote: >> Sriram Natarajan wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sunanda Menon wrote: >>>> >>>> Sriram Natarajan wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> I was wondering, if I can hear every one's thoughts as to should >>>>> we deliver a symbolic link of apache, php and mysql binaries (at >>>>> least some of the most commonly) used under /usr/bin ? For >>>>> example, some of the commonly used binaries like ab, apxs, httpd, >>>>> httpd.worker, php, php-cgi, mysql, mysqladmin should have a >>>>> symbolic link under /usr/bin ? One argument for having this under >>>>> /usr/bin is they are easy to access and customer clearly knows >>>>> about this ? Currently, none of this are delivered under /usr/bin >>>>> and users are expected to set /usr/<component>/<version> in their >>>>> PATH before using these. Do we still follow the same pattern ? >>>>> >>>>> If we are going to create symbolic link, then what will be the >>>>> expected behavior if a newer version of these components are >>>>> integrated ? Will the newer version of components simply over >>>>> write the symbolic links to point to the newer version ? >>>>> >>>> The new version simply overwrites the symbolic links . >>>> Thanks for starting this thread ,even for MySQL this was a big >>>> requirement and we did away with the symbolic links in 5.1. >>>> >>>> >>> can u elaborate as to what does it mean when you say 'we did away'.. >> For 5.0 we had usr/mysql/bin ---> /usr/mysql/5.0/bin ,but in 5.1 we >> have kept it as binaries being installed only in /usr/mysql/5.1/bin >> and the symbolic link doesn't get created as part of the package . >> > Why did you guys decide to do this way ? Considering that users are > now used to seeing some of the mysql binaries under /usr/bin and > suddenty yanking it out does not seem the right thing to do. I am > sure, you guys have your reasons but want to know as to > a) why you did not keep up with the practice of leaving the useful > mysql binaries under /usr/bin as you did with MySQL5.0 in OpenSolaris > 2008.05 ? > b) will our customer not wonder as to why we suddenly yanked it out ? > c) should all relevant components not follow the same practice - I > see that PostgreSQL 8.2 / 8.3 does not create any symbolic links .Is > this the accepted practice now ? > - Sriram symbolic links not being present was agreed to be documented .Since these symbolic links are meant for user convenience ,a user is required to create his own symbolic links . Though this was created in 5.0( in the past) ,but it would become difficult to traverse them along . Yes ,Postgres does not have any symbolic links either .I do not know if this is an acceptable practice ,but didn't find any solution from pkg-discuss as well .
>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> sriram >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> webstack-discuss mailing list >>>>> webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org >>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- Sunanda Menon Database Technology Group BLR03, x87098/91-80-66937098
