On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:07:15 +0200 > Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >> My conclusion of this and other discussions on the linux-doc ML is; we >> have the situation, where *old hats* want to stay with perl, since they >> are productive with, while sphinx is in the python domain. And there >> is a need (to answer [2]). > > Can't speak for others, but for me, perl is great for writing parsing > scripts. I can produce reliable scripts in perl on almost no time, > like the one I wrote today to parse the ABI file. I'm pretty good at C and bash scripts, can I use them for random documentation building things? Maybe elisp too. And I know a guy who knows Haskell. We can create stuff in them really fast too. </snark> Long term maintainability of the documentation system as a whole trumps *any* individual developer benefits. In my books, this was one of the main reasons to prefer Sphinx over giving the DocBook toolchain life support. >> IMO, the sphinx kernel-cmd directive [1] is the gate in between sphinx's >> python and the perl domains. > > I agree. No, it's a gate between Sphinx and any non-generic, hacky, random tool or script people think will solve the problem right at the front of their noses. That gate should be closed and bolted shut. Long term, any extensions we use or develop should be generic enough to be upstreamable to Sphinx. > It is up to Jon to decide that. Maybe he wants to get some feedback > about that on KS next week. Too bad I won't be there. Don't overwhelm him. ;) BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
