On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 21:56, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:01:26PM +0000, Emil Velikov via B4 Relay wrote: > >From: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > >Currently we have a pattern rule, which effective states that two output > >files are produced - %.5 and %.8. Although that's not the case in > >practise, since each input xml will be generated to a single manual > >page. > > > >Add the manpage section as part of the xml filename and tweak the > >pattern (match) rule, accordingly. > > > >Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> > >--- > >Noticed, while wondering if I should add sanitizer support to the > >autoconf build. > > > >A few, random questions: > > - are there any objections to adding sanitizers support? > > no > > > - would a meson.build be acceptable? Giving us sanitizers, coverage, > > scan-build, etc out of the box > > yes. A few years ago we converted to meson but I think a few things were > not working properly and we never finished that. If you few like adding > that for the next version, feel free to use that as base: > > https://github.com/falconindy/kmod.git meson > > > - writing xml is fiddly, would people be OK if we convert them to > > scdoc? here are some examples of the raw file [1] vs the man [2] > > first time I hear about scdoc. syntax seems simple, but I do wonder how > common it is in distros compared to e.g. pandoc or other options to > produce manpages. > > I know mkosi writes markdown and converts that to a manpage > (https://github.com/systemd/mkosi) and dim uses rst2man > (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/maintainer-tools.git) > > Any of those options seems better than writing xml, so I won't oppose to > scdoc if it's available in multiple distros out of the box in a version > that is sufficient for us. > Neat, thanks for the input and pointers. Will do some digging and provide a summary wrt scdoc/rst2man -Emil
