X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E829DC87A for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:56:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50297-01 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:56:45 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1789DC824 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:56:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k03Nubhe027675; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:56:37 -0500 (EST) To: Joe Conway cc: pgsqlrpms-hackers@pgfoundry.org, Tino Wildenhain , pgsql-general@postgresql.org, Andre Truter Subject: Re: [Pgsqlrpms-hackers] Re: DBlink documentation In-reply-to: <43BB0E38.1050602@joeconway.com> References: <1134823993.14378.37.camel@fullyautomatix.home.trusoft.co.za> <43A4109C.6060304@enelserver.com> <1134827063.14378.41.camel@fullyautomatix.home.trusoft.co.za> <43A41AFE.9030007@enelserver.com> <1134828849.14378.45.camel@fullyautomatix.home.trusoft.co.za> <1134831184.14378.51.camel@fullyautomatix.home.trusoft.co.za> <1134835756.4975.183.camel@Andrea.peacock.de> <8867.1134844268@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43A4726E.6050700@joeconway.com> <9980.1134852474@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43BB0E38.1050602@joeconway.com> Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway message dated "Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:52:24 -0800" Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:56:37 -0500 Message-ID: <27674.1136332597@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.13 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, SUBJECT_NOVOWEL=0.131] X-Spam-Score: 0.13 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/120 X-Sequence-Number: 89065 Joe Conway writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> It's not only the downstream packagers that have missed these: the >> Makefiles don't install them either. >> >> It'd be a good idea to settle on what we want the installed file layout >> to be --- do we need to create subdirectories under {prefix}/doc to >> forestall name conflicts? > While I'm messing with dblink, did you want me to do anything WRT this? I don't think we settled on what we want to do yet. Any thoughts? I'm kind of leaning toward the subdirectory idea myself... regards, tom lane