Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2JN8gN19072;
	Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:08:42 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2JN8bt07897;
	Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:08:37 -0500 (EST)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] src/test/regress/README duplicates SGML material 
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103200010570.5764-100000@peter.localdomain> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103200010570.5764-100000@peter.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:13:36 +0100"
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:08:37 -0500
Message-ID: <7894.985043317@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200103/98
X-Sequence-Number: 532

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Is it really necessary to maintain identical text in the test README
>> file and in the SGML docs?  I'm sorely tempted to remove the README
>> rather than double-editing yet again.

> It's referenced from the INSTALL file, because people presumably won't be
> able to read the HTML during installation.  Actually, the README was once
> generated from the HTML version.  It can be done again, but the exact
> process it kind of hazy.

If you've got any hints, I could really use a clue right about now ...
otherwise I'll have to do these LOCALE edits twice ...

			regards, tom lane