Re: Extensions, patch v16

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>>> What if $extension.control exists? Is it a byproduct of the .in file
>>> from previous `make` run or a user file? What if we have both the .in
>>> and the make variable because people are confused? Or both the make
>>> variables and a .control and not .control.in? Etc...

>> * Always remove $extension.control in the `clean` targets

> Hell no, as you can bypass the .in mechanism and provide directly the
> .control file.

Are there any actual remaining use-cases for that sed step?  It's
certainly vestigial as far as the contrib modules are concerned:
it would be simpler and more readable to replace MODULE_PATHNAME with
$libdir in the sources.  Unless somebody can point to a real-world
use-case, I'd just as soon get rid of the .in files altogether while
we're having this flag day.
        regards, tom lane