mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea of using a "directory" puts us back to using symlinks to share
> files.
So? If you want to share files, you're probably sharing all three
config files and don't need a separate directory at all. This is
not a sufficient argument to make me buy into the mess of letting
people choose nonstandard configuration file names --- especially
when most of the opposite camp seems to be more interested in choosing
*standard* names for things. Why does that policy stop short at the
directory name?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
