On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:31:32PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 5/13/20 1:21 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:10:53PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Hi Dave, > >> > >> On 5/12/20 6:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > >>> The prctl list has historically been sorted by prctl name (ignoring > >>> any SET_ or GET_ prefix) to make individual prctls easier to find. > >>> Some noise seems to have crept in since. > >>> > >>> Sort the list back into order. Similarly, reorder the list of > >>> prctls specified to return non-zero values on success. > >> > >> This is a good patch. But see my comments on patch 04. > >> I'd prefer a patch like this at the end of a series, > >> rather than in the middle of it. > > > > Ack. > > > > Ideally we could check the order with a script, but that seemed a step > > too far. > > Quite. > > > What's the view on having parts of the man pages generated, rather then > > being distributed ready-built? > > I'm not keen (until someone shows me compelling benefits). Splitting > things up would make pages harder to edit, and IMO increase > the chance for inconsistencies in pages. Fair enough. I might experiment with something, but I won't expect an easy sell! This sort of thing was part of my motivation for having a distinctive marker for the start of each prctl entry. > > > If we split prctl.2 up with a fragment per prctl, we could paste the > > fragments together in the right order with a script. > > > >> > >>> Content movement only. No semantic change. > >> > >> And explicitly noting that detail is very helpful to me. > > > > Unless of course I'm lying ;) (I'm not, but I won't be offended if you > > check.) > > Actually, with your first two patches, you impressed right out of > the gate, so my "I'm gonna blindly trust this guy" needle already > switched up pretty high :-). I guess I'll need to be careful... Cheers ---Dave
