linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 11/21] Documentation/kernel-docs.txt: convert it to ReST markup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:42:19 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/21] Documentation/kernel-docs.txt: convert it to
 ReST markup

Em Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:15:31 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:06:40 -0300
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com> wrote:
> 
> > This one required lots of manual work, for it to be properly
> > displayed.  
> 
> And, honestly, I wonder if it was worth it.  This document contains no
> entries for any recent documents, 

Not sure about that. There are a number of patches from 2016 made by
Luis de Bethencourt updating several stuff.

> many of the links in it are long since
> dead, and I honestly doubt it has been helpful to anybody.

I tested: all links there point to an existing documentation.

Yet, it lacks pointers to more recent printed Kernel books.

> If we keep it
> should definitely be marked as historical cruft, but I wonder if it's
> worth even that much effort?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer.

At the media book, we keep a bibliography updated as we add new stuff
there. I found it to be useful, specially since it mentions some ITU-T
specs that the media framework needs, but this is somewhat different
than what's there.

Maybe we could keep it there for a while and see if people update
it. If not, move it to an "historical" archive or remove it as
a hole.

Thanks,
Mauro