Thread: Why the separate jade calls for pdf and ps output?

doc/src/sgml/Makefile asserts

# Regular TeX and pdfTeX have slightly differing requirements, so we
# need to distinguish the path we're taking.

However, diff'ing the results shows that the .tex-pdf and .tex-ps output
files are actually identical.  Would it be reasonable to simplify the
Makefile by eliminating the separate build rules?  I guess we'd have to
make an arbitrary choice between texdvi-output and texpdf-output flags.

            regards, tom lane

On tor, 2010-04-29 at 10:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> doc/src/sgml/Makefile asserts
>
> # Regular TeX and pdfTeX have slightly differing requirements, so we
> # need to distinguish the path we're taking.
>
> However, diff'ing the results shows that the .tex-pdf and .tex-ps output
> files are actually identical.  Would it be reasonable to simplify the
> Makefile by eliminating the separate build rules?  I guess we'd have to
> make an arbitrary choice between texdvi-output and texpdf-output flags.

It has to do with graphics support, because tex and pdftex support
different graphics formats.  Since we don't currently have any graphics,
it's dead code.  I think you can actually do away with it anyway because
TeX should support graphics file references without extensions, ISTR.
So the actual reason for this might have been RTF support.

If it's in the way, remove it.  We can always add it back when someone
wants to add a graphic.  (And in that case we'll probably have to do
some additional coding somewhere anyway.)

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On tor, 2010-04-29 at 10:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, diff'ing the results shows that the .tex-pdf and .tex-ps output
>> files are actually identical.  Would it be reasonable to simplify the
>> Makefile by eliminating the separate build rules?  I guess we'd have to
>> make an arbitrary choice between texdvi-output and texpdf-output flags.

> It has to do with graphics support, because tex and pdftex support
> different graphics formats.  Since we don't currently have any graphics,
> it's dead code.  I think you can actually do away with it anyway because
> TeX should support graphics file references without extensions, ISTR.
> So the actual reason for this might have been RTF support.

> If it's in the way, remove it.

It's not in the way, particularly; I was just curious whether we could
do without it.  The only obvious benefit would be to save some work
when building PS and PDF output at the same time, but I doubt very many
people do that.

Since there was just recently some discussion about adding graphics to
the docs, I don't feel a need to put possible roadblocks in the way of
that.  Maybe the best thing would be to wait for some work of that sort
to land, and then experiment to see if we can simplify without breaking
anything.

            regards, tom lane