Re: Relocatable installs

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should use the relative-path method *unless* the configure
>> command called out specific installation directories (that is, not
>> just --prefix but --datadir and/or related options).

> I think we could adopt a simple rule: if you configure it for relocation 
> (and I think you should have to do that explicitly) then all paths are 
> relative to the binary location. If not, then full hardcoded paths are 
> used. No exceptions.

I think we're saying the same thing except for the question of whether
relative-path behavior has to be explicitly requested at configure time.

While I'm not dead set on it, I'm leaning to the idea that it's okay to
make relative-path the standard behavior.  I cannot see any real serious
downsides to it.  We have always bombed out if we are unable to locate
the executable, so it's not like that code isn't well-tested.
        regards, tom lane