Am 28.10.2016 um 14:55 schrieb Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:07:15 +0200 > Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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]). > > This is a bit of an aside, but: casting it as "python v. perl" is not, > IMO, a useful thing to do. Argh, sorry I chosed wrong words. This is not the discussion I wanted to start ... > We all have our preferences for tools, but > problems like this are just as easily solved with either. Right, we all have our favorites, but if I take a look at Kernel's sources, for scripting mostly Perl is used. What I mean; python is a requirement of Sphinx but Perl is more usual in Kernel's source, > This is not > the core issue with the whole "kernel-cmd" concept. Thats the point, what is the core issue? Jani says: > 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. I can understand that. This is where I say: Its maintainer's job to reject "hacky" implementations. > Certainly the ABI subtree is an example of why we'll want some sort of > processing of some of the files. .. wish you a good time at KS :-) > Documentation is on the agenda Monday afternoon; let's plan on discussing > all this there. I'm looking forward to the report ... -- Markus -- -- 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
