public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Cédric Villemain <[email protected]>
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: Josh Kupershmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DOCS] 9.0.3 pdf manual is missing bookmarks
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:23:39 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <OFCDC1B866.8E8ECBF4-ONC125786B.0021822E-C125786B.002287CA@gruppoautostrade.it>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

2011/4/17 Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>:
>
> On Apr 17, 2011 1:32 AM, "Josh Kupershmidt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [CC'ing the -www list, since this affects the PDFs provided by the
>> website. Ugh, and resending without attachments since it looks like
>> the last attempt didn't make it to the list.]
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:15 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > the 9.0.2 has them, but 9.0.3 pdf documentation is missing the
>> > bookmarks.
>> > When looking for something is a real pain having to always use find or
>> > switch back to TOC pages.
>> >
>> > Any chance that you can generate and republish a corrected doc?
>>
>> Hi Gabriele,
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to report this, and sorry for the delay in
>> following up. Just to clarify what (I think) Gabriele is complaining
>> about, here [1] is a screenshot from the Okular viewer of the
>> 9.0.3 -A4 or -US PDFs from the website [2]. You can see that the
>> "Contents" pane in the top left is greyed out [3].
>>
>> When I built these PDFs from the 9.0.3 tarball myself, the results
>> looked better [4]. Assuming this fixes Gabriele's problem, could we
>> update the website with the fixed versions [5] of the 9.0.3 PDFs?
>
> Could this be because of the efforts to reduce the size of the pdf's that
> was implemented a while ago?
>
>> Also, I noticed that the page of PDFs is not consistent with the PDF
>> naming scheme wrt. minor version numbers. We provide e.g.
>> "postgresql-8.4.6-A4.pdf" and "postgresql-9.0-A4.pdf". Personally, I
>> like having the minor version number included, but could we just be
>> consistent either way?
>
> We have a standard now, 8.4 just predates it. The standard is without the
> minor version, and the reasining behind this is both that it decreases
> storage requiremenyåts and more imoortant that a new version doesn't
> invalidate all old links, both on our own sites and othets...
>

In http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/  the 8.4 pdf file is the
only one misnamed then.


> /Magnus
>



-- 
Cédric Villemain               2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

view thread (19+ 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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [DOCS] 9.0.3 pdf manual is missing bookmarks
  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