Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also, Win32 installs are going to want to be more directory
independent than Unix.
Why?
Common practice, for one thing. Windows programs are typically relocatable, and Windows admins regard programs that rely on hardcoded paths very poorly indeed.
The usual location used by an installer is something like %ProgramFiles%/progname or %ProgramFiles%/progname/version - the definition of %ProgramFiles% is determined by the machine it is being installed on, not by the installer, and certainly can't be set at compile time. The machine might not even have a C: drive, for instance.
But this is not only a Windows issue, as Tom reminded us recently. If I understood him correctly, there have been calls for relocatable installations from other binary packagers.
Because Win32 can probe for the location of the binary, it seems it
should check to see if it can find libdir and sharedir own its own
and set those GUC values accordingly as part of initdb.
This is just going to open up the possibility of silently finding the wrong files.
Maybe it could be improved by using more version markers?
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
