On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 docs? Its part of the tarball process, so the
>> only ppl that should be doing it are those coming from CVS, no ... ?
>
> 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 it worse.
There is not much reason for an end-user to build the docs - most
end-users will install from RPMs or one-click installers or whatever.
But everyone who is a developer needs to be able to build them, many
can't already, and we have quite a lot of developers. Adding dia will
also create knock-on work for packagers, although that should be
mostly a one-time thing. I like the idea of being able to have
pictures in our documentation, but I'm a little nervous about the
ramifications.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
