Thread: Fix token exceeding NAMELEN

Trying to build HEAD and ran into this issue building the docs:

    openjade:logicaldecoding.sgml:575:62:Q: length of name token must
    not exceed NAMELEN (44)
    openjade:replication-origins.sgml:87:67:Q: length of name token must
    not exceed NAMELEN (44)

I've tried playing with the flags we (you) pass to openjade, but
couldn't make it override NAMELEN.

So, I've attached a patch that'll fix it.

"Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold@gentoo.org> writes:
> Trying to build HEAD and ran into this issue building the docs:
>     openjade:logicaldecoding.sgml:575:62:Q: length of name token must
>     not exceed NAMELEN (44)
>     openjade:replication-origins.sgml:87:67:Q: length of name token must
>     not exceed NAMELEN (44)

Hmm ... that's odd.  I don't see any such failure here, and the buildfarm
members that build the docs aren't complaining either.  What version of
openjade are you using exactly?

> So, I've attached a patch that'll fix it.

I have no particular objection to the patch as stated, but I'm just
wondering if this is the tip of a tool compatibility iceberg we were
not previously aware of.
        regards, tom lane

On 2015-05-13 18:16, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On 13 May 2015 at 17:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold@gentoo.org> writes:
> > > Trying to build HEAD and ran into this issue building the docs:
> > >     openjade:logicaldecoding.sgml:575:62:Q: length of name token must
> > >     not exceed NAMELEN (44)
> > >     openjade:replication-origins.sgml:87:67:Q: length of name token must
> > >     not exceed NAMELEN (44)
> >
> > Hmm ... that's odd.  I don't see any such failure here, and the buildfarm
> > members that build the docs aren't complaining either.  What version of
> > openjade are you using exactly?
> >
> > > So, I've attached a patch that'll fix it.
> >
> > I have no particular objection to the patch as stated, but I'm just
> > wondering if this is the tip of a tool compatibility iceberg we were
> > not previously aware of.
> >
>
> I recall us hitting this with Slony documentation.  The NAMELEN limit
> lay in the SGML/DocBook configuration that was configured at the
> distribution level, so that it differed (crucially) betwen Debian and
> Red Hat.
>
> Red Hat used to have a lower name length limit, and while overriding
> it was technically possible, it required modifying configuration that
> the distribution thought was owned by one of the SGML packages,
> and hence the modification seemed pretty inadvisable.
>
> I thought that this restriction was alleviated years ago, so I'm a bit
> surprised to see this come up in 2015.  (Or perhaps Gentoo hasn't
> yet opened up some limits???  :-) )

The restriction is alleviated (patched) by some distributions, and
Gentoo isn't among those.

It has been almost 4 years (the most recent Google has found) since the
last time this happened with PostgreSQL's docs.

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/BANLkTiktW6SRDygVfJRB4q+7dvWoQCC1Yg@mail.gmail.com

"Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold@gentoo.org> writes:
> On 2015-05-13 18:16, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> I thought that this restriction was alleviated years ago, so I'm a bit
>> surprised to see this come up in 2015.  (Or perhaps Gentoo hasn't
>> yet opened up some limits???  :-) )

> The restriction is alleviated (patched) by some distributions, and
> Gentoo isn't among those.

> It has been almost 4 years (the most recent Google has found) since the
> last time this happened with PostgreSQL's docs.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/BANLkTiktW6SRDygVfJRB4q+7dvWoQCC1Yg@mail.gmail.com

Ah, so we have hit it before and forgotten.  Might as well stick to the
previous decision then.  Patch applied, thanks!
        regards, tom lane