On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> As a packager, what I'd really want to see from a division into >>> recommended and not-so-recommended packages is that they get installed >>> into different subdirectories by "make install". > >> Well, that might be good, too. But, right now, if someone pulls up >> our documentation, or our source tree, they could easily be forgiven >> for thinking that hstore and dummy_seclabel are comparable, and they >> aren't. > > Sure, but that's a documentation issue, which again is not going to be > helped by a source-tree rearrangement.
I disagree - I think it would be helpful to rearrange both things. > As somebody who spends a lot of time on back-patching, I'm not excited > in the least by suggestions to rearrange the source tree for marginal > cosmetic benefits, which is all that I see here. I understand, but we have back-patched only 32 patches that touch contrib into REL9_0_STABLE since its creation, of which 9 were done by you, and only 4 of those would have required adjustment under the separation criteria I proposed. I think, therefore, that the impact would be bearable. Source-code rearrangement is never going to be completely free, but that seems like a tolerable level of annoyance. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
