public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why the separate jade calls for pdf and ps output?
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:21:56 +0300
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
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.)
view thread (3+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why the separate jade calls for pdf and ps output?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox