This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: use of sphinx/rest as source for GNAT doc
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:20:34 +0200
- Subject: Re: use of sphinx/rest as source for GNAT doc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140523152346 dot GA14154 at adacore dot com> <537F93C1 dot 301 at redhat dot com> <20140523184733 dot GA18815 at adacore dot com>
On 05/23/2014 08:47 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
- the GNAT doc source would be in rest format (.rst files) instead
of texinfo (.texi files)
What about the preprocessor for the VMS specifics? Will it go away?
Yes, we are about to baseline VMS maintenance, and the VMS specific doc
will go away in any case.
Good to hear.
- we would still provide .texi files, generated automatically by the
sphinx toolset (via 'make texinfo') and committed in the repository
(similarly to configure vs configure.in/aclocal.m4), so end users
would not have any extra dependency, and generation of documentation
would still be possible from the .texi files directly
How stable is the output from Sphinx across versions? Will this
potentially cause a lot of update churn?
I do not know, that can be investigated, although it's no different
from e.g. using different versions of autoconf (or requiring a specific
Hmm. Can virtualenv arrange for a specific sphinx version and its
dependencies? Then it's likely not a big deal, even though it's less
self-contained than autoconf.
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team