Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1679753 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2017-07-03 10:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2017-07-03 14:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again Jim Davis <jim.epost@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 23:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de> - 2017-07-06 10:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> - 2017-07-06 12:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 22:10 +0200

#1679753 — Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make PDF builds work again

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 05:46:25PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I've just spent rather more time than I would like figuring out why the PDF
> builds fail and what was needed to fix it.  The result is the following
> patch series.  It's a combination of little mistakes and fragility in the
> whole PDF build tool chain.
> 
> Mauro, Daniel: Do you want the last two?  Or otherwise give me acks?  I'd
> like to send the set Linusward forthwith so that 4.12 can come out with
> a working PDF build.

Only now stumbled over the full thread, but the drm patch is already
queued up for at least 4.13 (Dave was out and all that). I guess we could
try to cherry-pick through stable.

Personally I don't care at all for PDF builds, the only thing we do in our
autobuilder is html, same for me locally when building docs. That tends to
keep working :-)

Also, 0-day only tests the htmlbuild. Maybe you want to ping Fu and ask
him to add the pdfdocs to his build targets?
-Daniel

> 
> In general, I'm dismayed by the fragility of the whole thing.  I'm also a
> little concerned that nobody except Jim complained about the problem.
> Perhaps nobody really cares about PDF output anymore?  In the absence of a
> concerted effort on somebody's part, I predict that PDF building will be
> broken much of the time.  I have to wonder if it's worth it...
> 
> Jonathan Corbet (5):
>   Docs: Include the Latex "ifthen" package
>   Docs: Remove redundant geometry package inclusion
>   Docs: fix table problems in ras.rst
>   Docs: Use kernel-figure in vidioc-g-selection.rst
>   DRM: Fix an incorrectly formatted table
> 
>  Documentation/admin-guide/ras.rst                  | 10 ++--
>  Documentation/conf.py                              |  3 +-
>  .../media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-g-selection.rst          |  4 +-
>  include/drm/bridge/dw_hdmi.h                       | 70 +++++++++++-----------
>  4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.13.1
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1679973

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:25:38 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> Only now stumbled over the full thread, but the drm patch is already
> queued up for at least 4.13 (Dave was out and all that). I guess we could
> try to cherry-pick through stable.

I kind of gave up on the 4.12 goal, at least for now.  The number of
complaints has not been huge - I suspect you're far from the only one who
is not too worried about building PDFs...:)

jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1681827

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:25:38 +0200
> Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
>> Only now stumbled over the full thread, but the drm patch is already
>> queued up for at least 4.13 (Dave was out and all that). I guess we could
>> try to cherry-pick through stable.
>
> I kind of gave up on the 4.12 goal, at least for now.  The number of
> complaints has not been huge - I suspect you're far from the only one who
> is not too worried about building PDFs...:)

If fixing pdf (and ps) builds isn't worth the bother -- which I
wouldn't debate -- then it's best to just drop those build targets.
The only worrisome thing I see here is having build targets carried
from release to release that don't work.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682178

> Am 05.07.2017 um 23:22 schrieb Jim Davis <jim.epost@gmail.com>:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:25:38 +0200
>> Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Only now stumbled over the full thread, but the drm patch is already
>>> queued up for at least 4.13 (Dave was out and all that). I guess we could
>>> try to cherry-pick through stable.
>> 
>> I kind of gave up on the 4.12 goal, at least for now.  The number of
>> complaints has not been huge - I suspect you're far from the only one who
>> is not too worried about building PDFs...:)
> 
> If fixing pdf (and ps) builds isn't worth the bother -- which I
> wouldn't debate -- then it's best to just drop those build targets.
> The only worrisome thing I see here is having build targets carried
> from release to release that don't work.

my 5cent:

we have to communicate that PDF build is in a beta stage (for a long
time).

Sphinx-doc's PDF chain was not well maintained for a long time. With
newer versions (started with 1.5 and continued in 1.6) it becomes
better and better. This gives me some hope that there comes a day
where building PDFs is robust enough to use in automatic builds.

As long as we try to support various version of Sphinx shipped by
various distros and at the same time make/need deep (LaTeX)
adjustments, we will find those discussions on the ML.

If you are doubtful about my assessment, compare Sphinx's 
TeX stuff from master 

https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/tree/master/sphinx/texinputs

with e.g. 1.4.9 tag

https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/tree/1.4.9/sphinx/texinputs

-- Markus --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682292

Em Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:22:35 -0700
Jim Davis <jim.epost@gmail.com> escreveu:

> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:25:38 +0200
> > Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >  
> >> Only now stumbled over the full thread, but the drm patch is already
> >> queued up for at least 4.13 (Dave was out and all that). I guess we could
> >> try to cherry-pick through stable.  
> >
> > I kind of gave up on the 4.12 goal, at least for now.  The number of
> > complaints has not been huge - I suspect you're far from the only one who
> > is not too worried about building PDFs...:)  
> 
> If fixing pdf (and ps) builds isn't worth the bother -- which I
> wouldn't debate -- then it's best to just drop those build targets.
> The only worrisome thing I see here is having build targets carried
> from release to release that don't work.

My $5 cents on that. We do automatic pdf builds at linuxtv.org
since when we moved the media books to Sphinx. In order to avoid
regressions, we use a virtual environment for Sphinx, and we only
update to a newer version after checking if the upgrade won't break
build. Currently, it is running Sphinx version 1.4.9.

I did a grep on the access for the media.pdf doc at the apache's
log. We don't keep a long history there.

We had 41 accesses to the pdf logs over the last ~3 days, with means
that people are finding PDF output useful.

-

From my side, I like having everything into a single file
specially when I'm needing to find things at the document. Well,
ePub sort of provides that, but it is a way worse than PDF or
html, specially when big tables are there. Btw, over the
last ~3 days, we had only 1 access to the ePub version. So, not a
very popular format.

Thanks,
Mauro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1681769

On 07/03/17 01:25, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 05:46:25PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> I've just spent rather more time than I would like figuring out why the PDF
>> builds fail and what was needed to fix it.  The result is the following
>> patch series.  It's a combination of little mistakes and fragility in the
>> whole PDF build tool chain.
>>
>> Mauro, Daniel: Do you want the last two?  Or otherwise give me acks?  I'd
>> like to send the set Linusward forthwith so that 4.12 can come out with
>> a working PDF build.
> 
> Only now stumbled over the full thread, but the drm patch is already
> queued up for at least 4.13 (Dave was out and all that). I guess we could
> try to cherry-pick through stable.
> 
> Personally I don't care at all for PDF builds, the only thing we do in our
> autobuilder is html, same for me locally when building docs. That tends to
> keep working :-)
> 
> Also, 0-day only tests the htmlbuild. Maybe you want to ping Fu and ask
> him to add the pdfdocs to his build targets?
> -Daniel
> 
>>
>> In general, I'm dismayed by the fragility of the whole thing.  I'm also a
>> little concerned that nobody except Jim complained about the problem.
>> Perhaps nobody really cares about PDF output anymore?  In the absence of a
>> concerted effort on somebody's part, I predict that PDF building will be
>> broken much of the time.  I have to wonder if it's worth it...

I much prefer PDF output to html for my normal use. Not to get into a
debate about whether html or PDF is better, both have valuable use cases.
And it isn't PDF per se that I prefer - it could be any reasonable format
that contains the entire content in a single file, is easily scannable
("scrolled through", viewed by the human eye), easily searched, and can
be cut and pasted from.

As far as lack of complaints, I have been ignoring building documentation
until it feels to me like the issues from converting to the new system
have been worked out. And once that point is reached, then I need to
make time in my schedule to fix the in-source documentation so that
building the documents for device tree provides useful information
instead of incorrect information. If I was actively building
documentation I would have complained.


>> Jonathan Corbet (5):
>>   Docs: Include the Latex "ifthen" package
>>   Docs: Remove redundant geometry package inclusion
>>   Docs: fix table problems in ras.rst
>>   Docs: Use kernel-figure in vidioc-g-selection.rst
>>   DRM: Fix an incorrectly formatted table
>>
>>  Documentation/admin-guide/ras.rst                  | 10 ++--
>>  Documentation/conf.py                              |  3 +-
>>  .../media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-g-selection.rst          |  4 +-
>>  include/drm/bridge/dw_hdmi.h                       | 70 +++++++++++-----------
>>  4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>
>> -- 
>> 2.13.1
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web