Am 11.10.2016 um 18:45 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@infradead.org>:

> If we allow such scripts (and we do since day zero, due to
> kernel-doc), then there are 3 options:
> 
> 1) use a single python script to run the scripts needed in the
>   build process (e. g. merging kernel-cmd extension upstream);
> 
> 2) use a dedicated python script for every non-phyton script;
> 
> 3) use only python scripts to extend Sphinx functionality.
> 
> The (2) scenario seems to be the worse case, as it will end by
> having a perl(/shell?) script/python script pair for every 
> non-python script we need to run, we're actually making it twice
> worse.
> 
> For (3) to happen, we'll need to convert both kernel-doc and
> parse-headers.pl to Python. This could be a long term goal,
> but I prefer to not rewrite those scripts for a while, as
> it is a lot easier to maintain them in perl, at least to me, and it
> is less disruptive, as rewriting kernel-doc to Python can introduce
> regressions.
> 

Hi Mauro,

its a bit OT in this thread, but in the linuxdoc project,
the kernel-doc is already converted to python.

  https://return42.github.io/linuxdoc/cmd-line.html#kernel-doc

and you have used it already, when you lint with kernel-lint.
Hence I see more progressions than regression ;-)

> So, the way I see, (1) is the best approach.

agree

--Markus--

> 
>> Anyway, these are only my 2cent. I'am interested in what Jon says
>> in general about using (Perl) scripts to generate reST content.
>> 
>> --Markus--
>> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mauro

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to