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 ag
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
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
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 postgres
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 allo
> 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
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 broadcast)--
The Hermit Hacker writes:
> 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 documentatio
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.
>
>
--
Peter Eisentraut
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/
--
Lamar Owen writes:
> We're going to do this at this point in the release cycle? IOW, is
> there going to be an RC4 with this new packaging, or is the first-off
> tarball with new packaging going to be the *final* 7.1 release *raised
> eyebrow*?
>
> I am certainly NOT opposed to doing this -- jus
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 yo
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 distribute
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
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 "all
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
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 unt
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> 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 t
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 t
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:
> 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
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 distr
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
> > 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 rend
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 headers are missing. Could yo
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 the
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
> > 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
> > 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 hel
> 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 co
> > 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
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 shrinkin
>> 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
> > 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
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
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 pl
> 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 tarb
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker 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
>
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,
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 m
> > 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 continue to package the hardcopy somewher
> FWIW, I confirm that horology-no-DST-before-1970 is good; it passes on
> HPUX. Can anyone confirm horology-solaris-1947?
How to test it? All default tests are Ok on my Solaris.
Vadim
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe com
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> FWIW, I confirm that horology-no-DST-before-1970 is good; it passes on
>> HPUX. Can anyone confirm horology-solaris-1947?
> How to test it? All default tests are Ok on my Solaris.
If the horology test shows as passing, then we're set.
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> btw, I've applied the patch for the expected/ files to all variants of
> horology.out, so all platforms should pass that test now.
FWIW, I confirm that horology-no-DST-before-1970 is good; it passes on
HPUX. Can anyone confirm horology-solaris-1947?
> Okay, unless I hear different from anyone out there, I'm goin to roll RC3
> when I get to work tomorrow, and announce it before I leave (to give it
> some time to propogate to the mirrors) ...
> > The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Thomas? Did I miss your patch for the 'WITH TI
45 matches
Mail list logo
