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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:03:14 +0200 From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, Graham Whaley <graham.whaley@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote: > So can we discuss? I'm not saying we have to use Sphinx, but, should we > choose not to, we should do so with open eyes and good reasons for the > course we do take. What do you all think? This stalled a bit, but the waters are still muddy... Is the Sphinx/reStructuredText table support adequate for media/v4l documentation? Are the Sphinx output formats adequate in general? Specifically, is the lack of DocBook support, and the flexibility it provides, a blocker? Otherwise, I think Sphinx is promising. Jon, I think we need a roll of dice, err, a well-thought-out decision from the maintainer to go with one or the other, so we can make some real progress. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists