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 renaming the 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 which this 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!
