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]

Reply via email to