Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Claudio Natoli wrote: > > I'm yet to see a convincing argument for why we can't adopt the > > "binary-location/../share" approach as submitted late March. AFAICS, > > it was rejected on the basis that it was not platform independent (no > > arguments there) and that we could not rely on the ".." approach. > > The only objection was that it hardcodes the layout already in the > source, which gives us no flexibility at all to try out different > installation layouts. If you want to compute the relative paths from > bindir to libdir etc. at build time based on actual configure > options, then I see no problem with that.
But we want to resolve the locations at run-time, not build or configure time. For win32, I'm yet to see why this approach is egregious. Do you have an alternative solution to propose? Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see <a href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html";>http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html</a> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
