Bruce Momjian writes:
I didn't know that. I thought we genarated postscript only major
releases. Do we regenerate HTML for subreleases?
The HTML is generated every 12 hours, and whenever a distribution is
wrapped up it picks up the latest bundle. This will probably have to be
sorted out
Franck Martin wrote:
I have no idea if what I say is true about the PG distribution by PG people, but
I have noticed than in the rpms of other distros the postgresql-devel rpms do not
include all the .h files necessary to build PG extensions. For instance the
rtree.h and itup.h and gist.h
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
tarball, I don't object to that. I'm not sure why those weren't
distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go. I just say that the
doc sources are part of the source distribution...
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
docs has to be included as part of the main tar file, I'm going to change
the distributin generating script so that it generates a .src.tar.gz file
seperate from the .doc.tar.gz file, which will
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
docs has to be included as part of the main tar file, I'm going to change
the distributin generating script so that it generates a .src.tar.gz file
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
there will be an RC4, I'm just waiting to hear back from Peter E as to
Good.
whether there is anything in the build process we even risk breaking ...
we've been doing the whole split thing for the past release or two as it
is (the FreeBSD ports collection using the
Karl DeBisschop wrote:
In my experience so far, it is also noticably slower than gzip. It does
work, and it is available. I have not yet been convinced that the space
savings is worth the time lost. But ISTM this is a minor point.
The official tarball is gzipped -- the RPM will use that until
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
Just not well-tested for the RPM build environment :-).
Ya, but you could concievably test that now, without us doign an RC4 ..
the files are all there :)
So the structure isn't going to change -- just there's not going to be
Thomas Lockhart writes:
The docs are ready for shipment.
Even better ...
Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
I'm not speaking about "allowed",
The Hermit Hacker writes:
At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
standard tar ball? It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
.. thereby shrinking the distribution to
Bruce Momjian writes:
Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too? No need to include that,
I think. The web site has nice links to it now. Uncompressed it is
1.314 megs.
You see where this discussion goes? Do we want to go through each file
and argue whether it needs to be distributed?
Tom Lane writes:
OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
tarball, I don't object to that. I'm not sure why those weren't
distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go. I just say that the
doc sources are part of the source distribution...
Why would you
The Hermit Hacker writes:
Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
docs has to be included as part of the main tar file,
Because people want to read the documentation.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/
The Hermit Hacker writes:
those that don't want it, it sames them 2meg of download time ...
Another way to save at least 1 MB of download time would be bzip2'ed
tarballs.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/
---(end of
Bruce Momjian writes:
A major issue is that we don't regenerate docs for 7.1.1 or later, so
Sure we do.
the 7.1 docs carry for all the 7.1.X releases. That would seem to argue
for a separate tarball for docs so people don't redownload the docs
again for 7.1.1.
I didn't know
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thomas Lockhart writes:
The docs are ready for shipment.
Even better ...
Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no longer allowed into the
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The Hermit Hacker writes:
Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
docs has to be included as part of the main tar file,
Because people want to read the documentation.
get postgresql.src.tar.gz
get
Franck Martin wrote:
I have no idea if what I say is true about the PG distribution by PG people, but
I have noticed than in the rpms of other distros the postgresql-devel rpms do not
include all the .h files necessary to build PG extensions. For instance the
rtree.h and itup.h and gist.h
Karl DeBisschop wrote:
Actually, since you can suppress installation of the docs with --nodocs,
I would very much prefer to keep the html and text docs in the main RPM.
Otherwise I have two directories in /usr/doc for one software suite.
I'm researching how to get a subpackage to place docs
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
Lamar, do you plan to continue to package the hardcopy somewhere in the
RPMs? If so, I'll have them ready soon.
I didn't for 7.0, IIRC. Or
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
The docs are ready for shipment.
Even better ...
Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
At 2Meg, is there
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
The docs are ready for shipment.
Even better ...
Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
At
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
The docs are ready for shipment.
Even better ...
Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
Lamar, do you plan to
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
The docs are ready for shipment.
Even better ...
Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no
Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too? No need to include that,
I think. The web site has nice links to it now. Uncompressed it is
1.314 megs.
That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things. Not everyone
has an always-on high-speed Internet link.
If you want to
At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
standard tar ball? It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
.. thereby shrinking the distribution to 6Meg from its current 8 ...
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
standard tar ball? It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
.. thereby shrinking the
OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
tarball, I don't object to that. I'm not sure why those weren't
distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go. I just say that the
doc sources are part of the source distribution...
From the get-go, the docs
Thomas, will you be doing .pdf files? I have had requests to put that
in the Debian documentation package.
afaik, I don't have the means to generate pdf directly. Pointers would
be appreciated, if there are mechanisms available on Linux boxes.
We have had lots of offers of help for these
Thomas, will you be doing .pdf files? I have had requests to put that
in the Debian documentation package.
afaik, I don't have the means to generate pdf directly. Pointers would
be appreciated, if there are mechanisms available on Linux boxes.
We have had lots of offers of help for
That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things. Not everyone
has an always-on high-speed Internet link.
If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the
split distribution, that's fine with me. But I don't agree with
removing them from the full
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things. Not everyone
has an always-on high-speed Internet link.
If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the
split distribution, that's fine with me. But I don't
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:23:35PM -0400, Bruce Momjian allegedly wrote:
Thomas, will you be doing .pdf files? I have had requests to put that
in the Debian documentation package.
afaik, I don't have the means to generate pdf directly. Pointers would
be appreciated, if there are
Can you use ps2pdf to generate PDF? It is a utility that comes with
ghostscript. I know versions = 6.0 are fine.
PDF files generated from postscript with Adobe Acrobat are usually of
much higher quality than those generated by ghostscript. It seems that
ghostscript encodes rendered
34 matches
Mail list logo
