On tor, 2010-07-01 at 22:08 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On tor, 2010-07-01 at 19:10 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > I'm not sure if this means that we don't want to have the PNG files in
> > > our SCM though, because it'd make the doc unbuildable for those
> > > wit
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue jul 01 21:52:00 -0400 2010:
> On tor, 2010-07-01 at 19:10 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this means that we don't want to have the PNG files in
> > our SCM though, because it'd make the doc unbuildable for those
> > without access to
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue jul 01 21:52:00 -0400 2010:
>> Is there something that makes installing dia more challenging than the
>> other documentation build tools?
> Err, I dunno -- it's just an apt-get away for me, but what will Tom say
> when it do
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue jul 01 21:52:00 -0400 2010:
> >> Is there something that makes installing dia more challenging than the
> >> other documentation build tools?
>
> > Err, I dunno -- it's just an apt-get away for me, but wh
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue jul 01 21:52:00 -0400 2010:
> >>> Is there something that makes installing dia more challenging than the
> >>> other documentation build tools?
> >
> >>
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mail
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian 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.
That was my reaction too, but I am only one person. Yeah, I know that
is hard to be beli
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian 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
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> OK, everyone seems to like requiring dia.
>> >
>> > I don't like it a bit. It's hard enough for people to bu
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, everyone seems to like requiring dia.
> >>>
> >>> I don't like it a bit. It's ha
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I am afraid if we don't enable dia by default then we will end up with
> > production documentation without images. I think we have to default dia
> > to on, and give a reasonable error when it doesn't exist, and mention
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> > I am afraid if we don't enable dia by default then we will end up with
>> > production documentation without images. I think we have to default dia
>> > to on, and gi
Bruce Momjian writes:
> One more issue is that the dia and png files are going to impact our
> download sizes:
> 526k ./dia
> 483k ./png
500k of source for just half a dozen simple images? There's something
seriously wrong there. I suspect the PNGs could be compressed a lot
On fre, 2010-07-02 at 17:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Adding dia will
> also create knock-on work for packagers
The documentation is shipped prebuilt in the source tarball, so
packagers wouldn't need to do anything.
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make chang
On fre, 2010-07-02 at 18:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The point is you will have to explicitly turn off dia/images to build
> without images. That should make anyone building production docs
> always
> generate images, unless they override the default.
We have the "make draft" target. That
On fre, 2010-07-02 at 19:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Is it at all practical to ship the PNGs as well as the DIA files in
> CVS, and make rebuilding the PNGs from the DIAs a separate step?
Well, that's what we're arguing about here.
> Also, I think we need to review these images carefully befor
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Bruce Momjian 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
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > One more issue is that the dia and png files are going to impact our
> > download sizes:
>
> > 526k ./dia
> > 483k ./png
>
> 500k of source for just half a dozen simple images? There's something
> seriously wrong there. I suspect the
Robert Haas writes:
> Is it at all practical to ship the PNGs as well as the DIA files in
> CVS, and make rebuilding the PNGs from the DIAs a separate step?
Other than the bulky file sizes I see nothing wrong with that approach.
We have traditionally not required developers to have autoconf insta
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-07-02 at 18:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The point is you will have to explicitly turn off dia/images to build
> > without images. That should make anyone building production docs
> > always
> > generate images, unless they override the default.
>
> W
On fre, 2010-07-02 at 22:15 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 500k of source for just half a dozen simple images? There's
> something
> > seriously wrong there. I suspect the PNGs could be compressed a lot
> > more, but right now I'm wondering exactly how verbose the dia
> "source"
> > representati
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> > One more issue is that the dia and png files are going to impact our
>> > download sizes:
>>
>> > 526k ./dia
>> > 483k ./png
>>
>> 500k of source for just half a dozen simple imag
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-07-02 at 22:15 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > 500k of source for just half a dozen simple images? There's
> > something
> > > seriously wrong there. I suspect the PNGs could be compressed a lot
> > > more, but right now I'm wondering exactly how verbose t
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> There is a curious oversight in the windows documentation, where
> the several window pages are not linking to the functions-window
> (where the actual functions are enumerated).
>
> That makes it easy to overlook for instance, a function like
24 matches
Mail list logo
