Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Installation layout is still hazardous for shared prefixes

From: "Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Installation layout is still hazardous for shared prefixes
Date: 2000-09-29 09:29:48
Message-ID: 200009290929.e8T9Tmm32605@linda.lfix.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Lamar Owen wrote:
  >Tom Lane wrote:
  >> To do that without creating problems, we'd have to go back to making
  >> sure that all the programs we install have 'pg'-prefixed names.  The
  >> scripts (createdb and so forth) don't at the moment, and names like
  >> 'createuser' clearly have potential for confusion if they are in non-
  >> PG-specific directories.
  >
  >RedHat includes PostgreSQL, with executables in /usr/bin.  There have
  >been no namespace collisions as yet, with as many packages as RedHat
  >ships.
 
The same applies to Debian, with something like 4000 binary packages in
the current development tree.

  >> I think it would be a real bad idea to put the postmaster and postgres
  >> executables right in /usr/local/bin.  Perhaps it is time to think about
  >> a separate 'sbin' directory for programs that aren't supposed to be
  >> invoked by normal users.  Those two, initdb, initlocation, and ipcclean
  >
  >This is doable, but not really necessary.  However, if this is the
  >direction things are going..... I can certainly work with it.  In fact,
  >I may go ahead with 7.1's RPMset and do that, popping those executables
  >in /usr/sbin -- not a big change, by any means, except to the scripts
  >that are bundled with the RPM.
  
In the Debian package, I have put the administrator programs in
/usr/lib/postgresql/bin.  The postgres user has that directory in its path
so that all works properly.  Since root cannot run these, I don't think it
appropriate to put them in /usr/sbin.

  >A good, usable, shared prefix would make my job much easier.  Great gobs
  >of code in the spec file would go away as PostgreSQL loses the
  >'/usr/local/pgsql'-centric thinking and gets more in the step of what is
  >standard for packaging.  And this would help even on system other than
  >Linux FHS-compliant distributions.  And it would not cause any problems
  >for those who still want to use a prefix of /usr/local/pgsql.

Agreed.

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47  6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                 ========================================
     "Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, 
      believe also in me."          John 14:1 



Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-09-29 12:37:10
Subject: Re: Bizarre behavior of default access permissions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-09-29 01:31:40
Subject: Bizarre behavior of default access permissions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group