linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5a40b453e9a419c24af1e368711d504a9086c882.camel@darmarit.de>
Date:   Sat, 01 Sep 2018 09:32:59 +0200
From:   Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst

Am Freitag, den 31.08.2018, 16:50 -0600 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:43:12 +0200
> Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de> wrote:
> 
> > The documentation and TOCs are organized in a manner of a tree. Adding a
> > TOC to
> > the root, which refers to a file which is located in a subfolder forms a
> > grid. Those TOCs are a bit confusing and thats why we get additional error
> > messages while building partial documentation::
> > 
> >   $ make SPHINXDIRS=process htmldocs
> >   ...
> >   checking consistency... Documentation/process/license-rules.rst: \
> >   WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree
> > 
> > To fix it, the *root-license-TOC* is replaced by a reference and the
> > 'license-roles.txt' is added to the Documentation/process/index.rst TOC.
> > 
> > BTW: there was an old licences remark in Documentation/process/howto.rst
> > which
> > is also updated, mentioning SPDX and pointing to the license-rules.rst
> 
> So those are two separate changes and should really have been in two
> different patches.  I guess we can let that slide just this
> once...applied.

Ah, OK .. thanks!

> I do have to wonder if the licensing rules are *really* the most
> important thing in our docs - the thing that readers should encounter
> first, before anything else.  I think I'll revisit that at another time...

OT: my patch was to fix the structural licensing mess. Feel free to change,
what you have been applied with commit #aa19a176df95

-- Markus --