Thread: building pdfs
Is there any standard set of packages on any supported platform that will allow for building the doc PDFs? So far I have not found one on either Fedora 20 or Ubuntu 14.04, but maybe I'm missing something. I am looking at adding a buildfarm facility to build the docs, but I'm not prepared to make buildfarm owners turn handsprings in order to do so. IMNSHO, if we can't build the docs in all their formsts with standard distro packages then there's a problem right there we should address. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Is there any standard set of packages on any supported platform that
> will allow for building the doc PDFs? So far I have not found one on
> either Fedora 20 or Ubuntu 14.04, but maybe I'm missing something.
On either Fedora or RHEL, installing the "authoring tools" package group
(not quite the right name, but it's close) has worked for me for many
years. I've not bothered to figure out what the minimum required subset
of that might be.
Not sure what the Debian equivalent is, but borka/guaibasaurus is able to
build the docs, so the packages certainly are available. Peter might have
a better idea.
regards, tom lane
On 2014-07-26 14:14:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > Is there any standard set of packages on any supported platform that > > will allow for building the doc PDFs? So far I have not found one on > > either Fedora 20 or Ubuntu 14.04, but maybe I'm missing something. > > On either Fedora or RHEL, installing the "authoring tools" package group > (not quite the right name, but it's close) has worked for me for many > years. I've not bothered to figure out what the minimum required subset > of that might be. > > Not sure what the Debian equivalent is, but borka/guaibasaurus is able to > build the docs, so the packages certainly are available. Peter might have > a better idea. 'apt-get build-dep postgresql-$version' IIRC does the trick there. Installs a thing or two more, but those are things that a debian buildfarm member is going have installed anyway. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 07/26/2014 02:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-07-26 14:14:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >>> Is there any standard set of packages on any supported platform that >>> will allow for building the doc PDFs? So far I have not found one on >>> either Fedora 20 or Ubuntu 14.04, but maybe I'm missing something. >> On either Fedora or RHEL, installing the "authoring tools" package group >> (not quite the right name, but it's close) has worked for me for many >> years. I've not bothered to figure out what the minimum required subset >> of that might be. >> >> Not sure what the Debian equivalent is, but borka/guaibasaurus is able to >> build the docs, so the packages certainly are available. Peter might have >> a better idea. > 'apt-get build-dep postgresql-$version' IIRC does the trick > there. Installs a thing or two more, but those are things that a debian > buildfarm member is going have installed anyway. Yes, I did that and generated a PDF, but I got an enormous number of errors or warnings. See <https://www.dropbox.com/s/9n4hhijin3qn8mw/postgres-US.log> for example. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > Yes, I did that and generated a PDF, but I got an enormous number of > errors or warnings. See > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/9n4hhijin3qn8mw/postgres-US.log> for example. If they're things like "overfull hbox" from the TeX step, they're expected. regards, tom lane
On 07/26/2014 06:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> Yes, I did that and generated a PDF, but I got an enormous number of >> errors or warnings. See >> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/9n4hhijin3qn8mw/postgres-US.log> for example. > If they're things like "overfull hbox" from the TeX step, they're > expected. That's rather sad. How would we find out that something has actually gone wrong, short of it failing to write a PDF altogether? Searching through 204,000 lines of output doesn't sound like fun. There are lots of these: Package Fancyhdr Warning: \fancyhead's `E' option without twoside option is use less on input line 83877. and quite a few overfull hboxes that are more than 72pt too wide. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > On 07/26/2014 06:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >>> Yes, I did that and generated a PDF, but I got an enormous number of >>> errors or warnings. See >>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/9n4hhijin3qn8mw/postgres-US.log> for example. >> If they're things like "overfull hbox" from the TeX step, they're >> expected. > That's rather sad. How would we find out that something has actually > gone wrong, short of it failing to write a PDF altogether? Searching > through 204,000 lines of output doesn't sound like fun. I've always assumed that if there were something seriously wrong, it *would* fail to generate a PDF. It certainly does so when we hit things like the link-crosses-a-page-boundary restriction. > There are lots of these: > Package Fancyhdr Warning: \fancyhead's `E' option without twoside > option is use > less on input line 83877. Well, if you'd like to do the work to figure out a way to suppress that, more power to you. > and quite a few overfull hboxes that are more than 72pt too wide. I can't see that we'd ever invest the effort to get rid of those. Personally I find the PDF docs to be an anachronism: surely nobody is printing them on dead trees any more, and for on-computer usage, what do they offer that the HTML format doesn't? So I'm unexcited about making them slightly prettier. regards, tom lane
On 07/27/2014 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Personally I find the PDF docs to be an anachronism: surely nobody > is printing them on dead trees any more, and for on-computer usage, > what do they offer that the HTML format doesn't? So I'm unexcited > about making them slightly prettier. > > If they are then maybe there's no point in trying to build them in the buildfarm constantly. One advantage that they have over the HTML docs is that they encapsulate the docs in a single file. But then, so does the epub format, which, unlike PDFs, can adapt to display dimensions. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 07/27/2014 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally I find the PDF docs to be an anachronism: surely nobody
>> is printing them on dead trees any more, and for on-computer usage,
>> what do they offer that the HTML format doesn't? So I'm unexcited
>> about making them slightly prettier.
> If they are then maybe there's no point in trying to build them in the
> buildfarm constantly.
> One advantage that they have over the HTML docs is that they encapsulate
> the docs in a single file. But then, so does the epub format, which,
> unlike PDFs, can adapt to display dimensions.
Hm. I recall Peter was experimenting with building epub format. Maybe we
could start moving over to that, if there's a mature toolchain. I keep
fearing we are going to run up against document-size limits in the
jadetex toolchain (and unlike the last time, it may not be so easy to
modify the limits --- there are hard-wired limits inside TeX).
regards, tom lane