On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> OK, everyone seems to like requiring dia. >> > >> > I don't like it a bit. It's hard enough for people to build the docs as >> > it is. >> >> Why should anyone build the docs? Its part of the tarball process, so the >> only ppl that should be doing it are those coming from CVS, no ... ? > > People often built them to verify the SGML markup and to view the > content/markup before submitting a doc patch.
Actually, they often DON'T, which is a problem, and adding more requirements is only going to make it worse. There is not much reason for an end-user to build the docs - most end-users will install from RPMs or one-click installers or whatever. But everyone who is a developer needs to be able to build them, many can't already, and we have quite a lot of developers. Adding dia will also create knock-on work for packagers, although that should be mostly a one-time thing. I like the idea of being able to have pictures in our documentation, but I'm a little nervous about the ramifications. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
