On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Sure, but it will only matter given a more-or-less-broken Python
>>> installation. Anyway, if you have a better idea, let's hear it.
>
>> Sorry, no clue....
>
> So I pushed that, and most of the Debian-based buildfarm critters
> don't like it. Where does Debian keep the python shlib, pray tell?
...must...not...say...I...told...you...so...
Even if you eventually get this working on every flavor of Linux
that's represented in the buildfarm, it's likely to be unreliable on
other versions of Linux and/or other UNIX-like operating systems
because operating system packagers *love* to find new places to store
things, and system administrators expect to be able to compile stuff
with --prefix and have things work after that, at least if they then
pass the right configure flags to the next thing they want to install.
I bet you a nickle that if you include a hard-coded list of paths in
any form, at least one operating system packager is going to have to
patch that hard-coded list in order to get things to work -- and a
quarter that at least one user will have to patch it.
Like I already said, I don't have a better solution, but all of my
experience says that this one is not going to be reliable no matter
how hard you beat it. I will be happy if you can prove me wrong,
though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company