linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts: kernel-doc: allow passing desired Sphinx C domain dialect

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: <20201006080134.07d94d26@lwn.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 08:01:34 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: kernel-doc: allow passing desired Sphinx C
 domain dialect

On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 08:42:07 +0200
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:

> As right now we don't support Sphinx version 3.0[1], we're actually using just
> $sphinx_major. So, I'm wonder if it would make sense to also make <minor>
> optional.

Maybe...someday we may need it, knowing how the Sphinx folks approach
compatibility, but I guess we can always add it then if so.

> The change would be trivial, although the regex will become even more
> harder to read ;-)

	^(\d+)(\.(\d+)){,2}

?  (untested, of course)

> [1] not sure how valuable would be adding support for Sphinx 3.0. While
> I didn't make any tests, I'm strongly suspecting that, with the approach
> we took for backward/forward compatibility, adding support for it
> would mean to just do a trivial change at cdomain.py by applying a
> patch that Markus did replacing a regex function that doesn't exist
> anymore at Sphinx API and emulating C namespace with the logic I
> already implemented. 

3.0 might just be skippable at this point, methinks.  

jon