Re: Why the separate jade calls for pdf and ps output?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why the separate jade calls for pdf and ps output? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1272558116.20671.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Why the separate jade calls for pdf and ps output? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why the separate jade calls for pdf and ps output?
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
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.)
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: