linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/11] scripts: sphinx-build-wrapper: add a wrapper for sphinx-build

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: <20250821214308.08835b9f@foz.lan>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:43:08 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Björn
 Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary
 Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] scripts: sphinx-build-wrapper: add a wrapper for
 sphinx-build

Em Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:36:24 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:

> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > There are too much magic inside docs Makefile to properly run
> > sphinx-build. Create an ancillary script that contains all
> > kernel-related sphinx-build call logic currently at Makefile.  
> 
> So I am just now looking at the script and seeking to understand it, but
> one thing has jumped at me that I wanted to toss out there...
> 
> > +# Minimal supported Python version needed by Sphinx and its extensions
> > +MIN_PYTHON_VERSION = parse_version("3.7")
> > +
> > +# Default value for --venv parameter
> > +VENV_DEFAULT = "sphinx_latest"
> > +
> > +# List of make targets and its corresponding builder and output directory
> > +TARGETS = {  
> 
> We don't at this point have a formal coding standard for Python code,
> but I do think that we should, to the extent possible, stick to the
> rules that have been established for C code.  One thing I would really
> like to see is in the comment style; our rules want:
> 
>     /*
>      * ...C comments spread out with the markers on separate lines
>      * like this...
>      */
> 
> so can we do something similar for Python?
> 
>     #
>     # Markers above and below
>     #
> 
> I will confess that this matches my personal subject preference, but it
> also brings us closer to what our C code looks like.

Fine for me. Can I do such changes on a patch at the end of the series
to prevent rebase conflicts?

> (I don't know that I would push to redo everything to match that style,
> but instead to move that way going forward).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon



Thanks,
Mauro