Re: PostgreSQL PKGNAME

["Filip Hajny" <filip%joyent.com@localhost>]

On 18.12.2010, at 14:45, Adam wrote:

>>> How about getting rid of PG_SUBPREFIX? :)
>> 
>> I don't use it, but it makes having two postgres versions around for
>> testing a lot easier.
> 
> People who love testing, know how to build and install PostgreSQL. Average 
> users don't need the black magic of PG_SUBPREFIX. I know some packages expect 
> libpq to be in PREFIX/lib, but PG_SUBPREFIX might move it somewhere else. In 
> my opinion it's dangerous, dirty and makes maintaining the package more 
> complicated.

I disagree. It's not just about testing. A customer running a production site 
will be much more comfortable knowing that he can have both major versions 
installed at the same time, and only do away with the old one when he's safe 
knowing the import into the new one worked fine.

I should say I did not know about the existence of PG_SUBPREFIX at all until 
this thread, and have been cursing at CONFLICTs all the time, wishing 
PostgreSQL support in pkgsrc had been writen the OpenSolaris way (i.e. each 
version having its own installation prefix + storage data directory). At the 
same time knowing the significant problems raised by such approach of course… ;)

-F