[postgis-devel] postgis_comments.sql

[Tom van Tilburg]

As a normal user who regularly builds his own postgis I have more than once
been interrupted by missing of even problematic docbook dependencies.
It would not be missed by me.

Tom



On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:01 AM Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:

> Added users to cc list to get more input.
>
> I have mixed feeling about this.  I see the value of not including it in
> extensions but would like to keep the make target.
>
>
>
> 1)      If you build from tar ball it’s already included built so you
> don’t need docbook to build extensions from tar ball.  But I guess if you
> build from git you do need dockbook. Given the craziness of our
> dependencies and the fact that most people don’t build their own PostGIS –
> the pain seems pretty minimal.
>
> 2)      Building the comments has on occasion prevented us from
> documenting things that aren’t so.  For example if you said in the docs the
> function signature is
>
>
>
> Foo(geometry, integer)
>
>
>
> And it was defined in the code as foo(geometry, integer[])
>
>
>
> Then the build would error out because the code doesn’t agree with the
> docs  – which I think is a nice feature.
>
>
>
>
>
> But that is the only really nice to have I can think of.  I suppose we
> could achieve the same by keeping the make target, but just don’t include
> it in extensions
>
> and have it as part of the ci steps to install the comments to confirm
> they install.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Bruce Rindahl
> *Sent:* Monday, March 2, 2020 5:43 PM
> *To:* PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [postgis-devel] postgis_comments.sql
>
>
>
> This:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> then this:
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> ??
>
> vs this:
>
> https://postgis.net/docs/DropGeometryColumn.html
>
>
>
> I say it is a no brainer.  Especially since the function above is really
> not needed in PostGIS v3.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:34 PM Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
> wrote:
>
> I have long had an animus for the comments.sql file, because it results in
> a couple bad couplings:
>
> extension depends on comments depends on docbook, so you cannot build
> extension without having docbook/xslt tools installed
> extension depends on commetns depends on docbook, so you cannot change
> documentation format
>
> All this maybe would be worth choking down if the SQL comments provided
> any great value, but it’s not at all clear to me that they do. People
> lookup functions on postgis.net, on the google, but not in their SQL
> terminal monitors or object browsers.
>
> If we can find it without ourselves to not have SQL comments anymore, we
> can back out some of these weird dependencies.
>
> Taking the temperature, who would set themselves on fire to save SQL
> comments?
>
> P
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20200304/405d3394/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20200304/405d3394/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 29611 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20200304/405d3394/attachment-0003.png>