[postgis-devel] Documentation and comments in tarball

[Paragon Corporation]

>  Is there a general consensus about what should be shipped and what not
>  in the tarball ? My personal opinion is that only sources should be in
 >  a source tarball, and documentation is no exception, but if the majority
>  decides for a different setup please let me know and I'll update the
 > make_dist.sh script accordingly.

> As a packager, I would like to see things included if not including them
would greatly expand the required build dependencies, where 'greatly' in
practice is about not dragging in huge xml toolchains that otherwise would
not be needed.  And otherwise, I have a bias against including generatable
files.

Me too

>  It looks like docbook tools are needed (but README.postgis doesn't
mention doc prereqs), and those usually qualify as too-big-for-comfort.
> But, postgis+postgresql is also big, so it's not so clear.

I suggested leaving out the PDF documentation from the tar ball because it's
a hefty 5 MB and getting bigger as we add more pictures.  Also it is readily
available on the documentation page.

http://www.postgis.org/documentation/

So when I package the PDF in the windows builds, I just pull the release
version from there to include.


The html is a bit trickier since there are so many autogenerated images that
can get big.  I would concur with Paul that that should be packaged in
though the images files to make the zip a bit heftier.  I would also go with
singe html and having chunked files is a pain to search
And does require I rebuild my make script to account for all the new
additions.  I'm just wondering if we shouldn't do the same and have the html
as a separate zip file on the documentation.

It's just a pain to have to wait a bit longer to pull down the extra 10 MBs
that the documentation adds, especially since I only need it for my final
packaging and people who buil there own often just read it on the website.

Thanks,
Regina