On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:23:36PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: > > On 30/01/2024 17:06, Breno Leitao wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:22:08AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2023, Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > This is a simple script that parses the Netlink YAML spec files > > > > > (Documentation/netlink/specs/), and generates RST files to be rendered > > > > > in the Network -> Netlink Specification documentation page. > > > > > > > > First of all, my boilerplate complaint: All extra processing for Sphinx > > > > should really be done using Sphinx extensions instead of adding Makefile > > > > hacks. I don't think it's sustainable to keep adding this stuff. We > > > > chose Sphinx because it is extensible, and to avoid the Rube Goldberg > > > > machine that the previous documentation build system was. > > > > > > So I feel like we've (me included) have kind of sent Breno around in > > > circles on this one. This *was* implemented as an extension once: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231103135622.250314-1-leitao@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > At that time it seemed too complex, and I thought that an external > > > script would lead to a simpler implementation overall. Perhaps I was > > > wrong. > > > > I think you are correct. I personally _think_ that the external script > > is better, mainly because it is self contained, thus, easier to > > maintain. > > From a cursory look at the two versions, the actual Python code to read > the YAML and write the reST is the same in both cases. (Breno, please > correct me if I'm wrong.) You are correct. They are similar because Sphinx was not bringing much value to what I was trying to do (or I was not able to explore all Sphinx benefit - It was my very first Sphinx plug-in). That said, the plug-in was basically a wrapper around "the Python code", that was re-used for the one-off script. So, moving from one to another was easy.
