[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160216090803.5b4a44a2@lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:08:03 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:25:49 +0200
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> wrote:
> However I didn't think Sphinx could produce docbook, and a quick search
> doesn't convince me otherwise. Do you have some links to back this up?
Somehow I was really sure of it, but I'm not finding it now. There is an
extension out there, but it warns about being a "work in progress," so
I'm not sure we can count it.
Whether this is a show-stopper is indeed a good question. I doubt many
people wanted the DocBook for its own sake, it's a matter of where you
can go from there. But yes, it would be good to be sure on this point.
> Sphinx might offer a way to drop docproc through the extension
> mechanism, without resorting to the "separate-file approach". It might
> be a more sensible approach as a whole.
There's a certain elegance to it that I like, but it is an idea that
needs to actually be demonstrated. It could also come later on, though,
with the docproc or include mechanisms used for now.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists