Re: Is there a PDF version of the PostgreSQL 7.3.2 - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: Is there a PDF version of the PostgreSQL 7.3.2
Date
Msg-id 1050599774.9816.1555.camel@camel
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is there a PDF version of the PostgreSQL 7.3.2 documentation  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Is there a PDF version of the PostgreSQL 7.3.2
List pgsql-docs
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 11:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
> > Robert Treat wrote:
> > > any problems with me putting this up on the www site? I'll try to
> > > coordinate to get it on the ftp mirrors as well.
> >
> > No problems with me -- all I did was run `make` ;-)
> >

I tried to do that with CVS head (understanding I really should check
out the 7.3 branch for what we're talking about) and it failed for me,
something about PARA type not allowed. I also notice that the cvs build
instructions suggest the names for the old books, this will need to be
changed at some point I think.

> > However, see the section "Applixware RTF Cleanup" at this url:
> > http://www.us.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.3/postgres/doc-build.html
> >
> > It refers to cleanup for hardcopy purposes, but I thought the "official"
> > pdfs were made from the cleaned up postscript file in the past. Please
> > note that I did *not* do the clean up steps; I literally just ran `make
> > filename.pdf`
>
> I thought those cleanups weren't used anymore.  There were for old
> Applix bugs, and we don't use Applix anymore.
>

I thought I remember someone (Peter? Thomas Lockhart?) mentioning that
there was some cleanup they did for the 7.2 pdf's.  I'm still inclined
to just post these as it seems unlikely that whomever did them before
will have availability to do it again, and after skimming through the
ones Joe built I don't see anything atrocious.


Robert Treat


pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Is there a PDF version of the PostgreSQL 7.3.2 documentation
Next
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: techdocs missing link