Patch - yes, a good way. but 1) requires invasion to the makefile 2)
makes changes in the file stored on git..
in case postgresql.conf.sample.in is a template, there are no such
problems. and this does not bother those who if someone assumes the
existence of the postgres.conf.sample file
>Even more to the point, they've probably got an existing process for this, which would be needlessly broken by
renamingthe file as-distributed.
I agree, this is a serious reason not to do this, especially if the
vendor stores changes in postgres.conf.samle in git
> So if you want this proposal to go anywhere, you need a much more concrete and compelling example of something for
whichthis is the only sane way to do it.
This feature seems usable for preparing a certain number of packages
consisting of different features. Each feature can have its own set of
sample settings in postgres.conf.sample. In this case, using makefile
+ patch is more ugly.
In any case, I am grateful for the answer and clarification!
