Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not only the downstream packagers that have missed these: the
>> Makefiles don't install them either.
>>
>> It'd be a good idea to settle on what we want the installed file layout
>> to be --- do we need to create subdirectories unde
Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm happy to lump all the docs back into the README if that's what you
want, but I split it up in the first place because it was getting very long.
No, I'm not really proposing that we force all contrib modules to have
only a README. I'm
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:47:54PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It'd be a good idea to settle on what we want the installed file layout
> to be --- do we need to create subdirectories under {prefix}/doc to
> forestall name conflicts?
README is probably fine for most of what's in contrib, but for other
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm happy to lump all the docs back into the README if that's what you
> > want, but I split it up in the first place because it was getting very long.
>
> No, I'm not really proposing that we force all contrib modules to have
> only a
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm happy to lump all the docs back into the README if that's what you
> want, but I split it up in the first place because it was getting very long.
No, I'm not really proposing that we force all contrib modules to have
only a README. I'm just annoyed by
Tom Lane wrote:
Actually, I don't think you can reasonably blame the Debian packager
for having overlooked the fact that contrib/dblink has more
documentation files besides its README. The PGDG RPM people overlooked
that too, as did Red Hat (ie, me).
Well, in my own defense, I pointed out the
