linux-kernel - Re: rst2pdf (was [PATCH 00/10] Documentation/Sphinx)

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: <1241B2AE-2257-4C72-97A1-D1D22D713442@darmarit.de>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2016 08:02:06 +0200
From:	Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	Dan Allen <dan@...ndevise.io>,
	Russel Winder <russel@...der.org.uk>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Subject: Re: rst2pdf (was [PATCH 00/10] Documentation/Sphinx)


Am 03.06.2016 um 22:47 schrieb Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>:

> On Mon, 30 May 2016 23:05:34 +0300
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I can't recommend to use rst2pdf (it is less maintained), use default
>>> sphinx LaTeX toolchain.  
>> 
>> I think we'll use whatever works, rst2pdf seemed to work for now, but we
>> can change if needed.
> 
> I really like the idea of using rst2pdf and keeping the huge latex
> dependency out of the mix.  I am a bit concerned, though; I've been able
> to crash it in my experiments here.  We may want to have the ability to
> support either chain eventually; otherwise, we might just end up picking
> up maintenance of rst2pdf at some point so that it works properly for us.
> 
> jon

I looked closer to rst2pdf, it supports only the docutils reST, but
not the sphinx superset ...  

<SNIP rst2pdf>-------------
$ rst2pdf  index.rst
index.rst:15: (ERROR/3) Unknown interpreted text role "ref".
index.rst:15: (ERROR/3) Unknown interpreted text role "ref".
index.rst:27: (ERROR/3) Unknown directive type "toctree".

.. toctree::
    :maxdepth: 1

    kernel-doc-intro
    kernel-doc-syntax
<SNAP>-------------


rules like ":ref:", domains like ":c:type:" and directives like ".. toctree:"
are a part of the (extended) reST syntax from sphinx, thats why 
standard docutils (like rst2*) will not work ...

> Am 18.04.2016 um 10:10 schrieb Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marIT.de>:
> Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit
>
> BTW a few words about differences between DockBook and reST (Sphinx).
> 
> With DocBook you write *books*, the protocol (the DocBook application) has
> no facility to *chunk* and interconnect several documents. The external ENTITY 
> is a workaround on the SGML layer, not on XML nor on the DB-application layer.
> Thats the reason, why so many XML-tools don't handle this entities and
> many DocBook to (e.g.) reST tools are fail.
> 
> With **standard** reST it is nearly the same, except there is a "include"
> directive on the application layer. But this directive is very simple,
> comparable to the C preprocessor "#include" directive.
> 
> With the **superset** reST-markup of Sphinx-doc you get a the "toctree" directive,
> which lets you control how a document-tree should be build.
> 
> http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/markup/toctree.html
> 
> @Mauro: you mentioned a docutils (rst2*) experience in your mail 
>      http://marc.info/?l=linux-doc&m=145735316012094&w=2
> 
>      Because the "toctree" directive -- and other directives
>      we use -- are a part of a superset of the **standard** 
>      reST, the standard docutils (like rst2*) will not work.


-- Markus --