Re: [crossdev] [PATCH] Make docbook2man optional

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

Thanks for the feedback!

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:46:02 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > So, I think that the patch is still necessary, or at least some
> > solution that does not require docbook2man to build
> > module-init-tools.
> 
> i already gave you the workaround that doesnt require any patching:
> 
> >> if you dont want man pages *regenerated* because you're patching
> >> files, then simply touch them:
> >>       touch *.[58]

This workaround sounds a lot uglier than the patch I propose, which
cleanly makes docbook2man non-essential.

You major complaint about the patch was :

"
the biggest reason i dislike this is that it opens the possibility of
man pages silently being generated incorrectly on the system where the
release is being made.
"

Would you accept a patch that adds a --enable-doc/--disable-doc option.
--enable-doc is the default value, and errors out at the ./configure
step if docbook2man is not available. --disable-doc would not require
docbook2man and would not generate the documentation.

This way, the release process is unchanged: the one that
runs ./configure by default is required to have docbook2man, but all
those embedded Linux build systems can pass --disable-doc if they don't
care about the documentation.

What do you think ?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-modules" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html