From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SGML index build fix |
Date: | 2007-01-08 02:50:43 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0701081349150.27762@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Perhaps even more to the point, what makes you think that someone
> >> will notice the warning? If the docs build is one step in an
> >> automated build process, this seems unlikely.
>
> > Taking a closer look, it's pretty much guaranteed that no one will see
> > them, because the targets they are attached to are intermediate,
> > normally followed by latex runs.
>
> If we think this is a problem, ISTM the correct answer is to just force
> a repeat jade run when doing "make all". The only objection to that
> AFAICS is that when you're doing docs work and only need a draft to
> look at, you'd rather it not run twice. But perhaps we could address
> that by providing a separate target, "make draft" say, that runs jade
> but once.
That's a nice approach. Those working on the docs will know about the
draft target and those just wanting to build the docs for publication will
get the result.
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-08 04:10:03 | Re: [HACKERS] SGML index build fix |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-08 02:28:58 | Re: Full page writes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-08 04:10:03 | Re: [HACKERS] SGML index build fix |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-08 02:03:34 | Re: [HACKERS] SGML index build fix |