linux-kernel - Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit

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]

Message-ID: <87io1ofum7.fsf@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:11:28 +0200
From:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
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, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> 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.

So the question is, are HTML, latex (for pdf and presumably ps), epub,
texinfo, and man pages enough?

My subjective opinion is they are enough, and whoever wants more can
make it work for them using pandoc. It's not like we had this great
publishing framework before that we'd be breaking. Quite the opposite,
and it would be awesome to have a robust set of outputs actually working
for the majority of people.

> 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.

Oh, totally agreed, I was just musing on potential follow-up work.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center