Alvaro Herrera writes:
I've been trying to generate HTML from the SGML source here in Mandrake
Linux 8.1, and it needs some patching (Mdk Linux puts collateindex.pl in
/usr/bin rather that $DOCBOOKSTYLE/bin).
I'll look at your patches soon. I've had some other ideas that I'd like
to weave
good point ... but, where should I be pulling from? ~ftp/pub/doc/7.2
contains .pdf files, which I didn't think we wanted to put into the
distribution ... is there an alternative place I should be pulling docs
from then ~ftp/pub/dev/doc? should there be a step in the 'build dist'
that builds
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
should there be a step in the 'build dist'
that builds the docs based on the sgml?
It would be a good idea to rebuild the 7.2 docs from 7.2.1 sources,
as we made several important fixes in the documentation since 7.2
release. I dunno whether it's
Marc G. Fournier writes:
good point ... but, where should I be pulling from? ~ftp/pub/doc/7.2
contains .pdf files, which I didn't think we wanted to put into the
distribution ... is there an alternative place I should be pulling docs
from then ~ftp/pub/dev/doc?
No, there currently is no
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
good point ... but, where should I be pulling from? ~ftp/pub/doc/7.2
contains .pdf files, which I didn't think we wanted to put into the
distribution ... is there an alternative place I should be pulling docs
from then ~ftp/pub/dev/doc?
El Mar 26, Peter Eisentraut escribio:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
should there be a step in the 'build dist'
that builds the docs based on the sgml?
I've been promoting that every time this problem happens. And the problem
does happen every time we're making a minor release. I think it's
Bruce Momjian writes:
I can do it hear easily. Let me know and I will give you the URL. It
takes only 7 minutes here.
Go ahead. Just make sure you use some reasonably recent style sheets (=
1.70) and not 1.64 that you currently have.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
I can do it hear easily. Let me know and I will give you the URL. It
takes only 7 minutes here.
Go ahead. Just make sure you use some reasonably recent style sheets (=
1.70) and not 1.64 that you currently have.
I will not be able to
Just before anyone asks where it is ... I'm just rolling v7.2.1 up right
now and will let everyone know once its ready for a download ... I'll do
up an announce in the morning unless anyone finds a flaw in it ...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5:
Try her out and let me know if there are any problems ... the build looks
clean, sizes all look right ... if no visible probs, will announce in the
mroning ...
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Just before anyone asks where it is ... I'm just rolling v7.2.1 up right
now and will
Other than the documentation issues, I confirm the tarball looks good
from here.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marc G. Fournier writes:
Try her out and let me know if there are any problems ... the build looks
clean, sizes all look right ...
... but the contained documentation is for 7.3.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
Try her out and let me know if there are any problems ... the build looks
clean, sizes all look right ...
... but the contained documentation is for 7.3.
On the subject of contained documentation, I notice
***
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
Try her out and let me know if there are any problems ... the build looks
clean, sizes all look right ...
... but the contained documentation is for 7.3.
On the subject of contained documentation, I
Bruce Momjian writes:
Is this right, or should majorversion still be 7.2? Right offhand
the latter seems correct ...
I wasn't sure what to do here. I figured if the docs were regenerated,
it should say 7.2.1, and if they aren't, then they will stay as 7.2.
But neither explanation
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Is this right, or should majorversion still be 7.2? Right offhand
the latter seems correct ...
I wasn't sure what to do here. I figured if the docs were regenerated,
it should say 7.2.1, and if they aren't, then they will stay as 7.2.
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But neither explanation warrants setting majorversion to 7.2.1.
Why? Why shouldn't the documentation match the release number?
Did you look at how majorversion is used?
Setting it to 7.2.1 is *clearly* wrong.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But neither explanation warrants setting majorversion to 7.2.1.
Why? Why shouldn't the documentation match the release number?
Did you look at how majorversion is used?
Setting it to 7.2.1 is *clearly* wrong.
Oh, I see, there
Bruce Momjian wrote:
snip
Why? Why shouldn't the documentation match the release number?
Shouldn't major version still be 7.2, and version be 7.2.1.
i.e. 7.2.1 is a minor release/update/subversion of 7.2?
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
Bruce Momjian
19 matches
Mail list logo
