Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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,
I think that adding dia to the set of requirements isn't that big a
deal, assuming that it's a widely available package. It's just one
program and should be a lot easier to install and configure than our
other doc toolchain requirements.
What I'm more worried about at the moment is whether it's a reasonable
choice of tool. If the "source" for a diagram is larger than the PNG
image representation, there is something seriously wrong with the
language design.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
