Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Sep 1999 17:35:09 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [patch] kernel API documentation system |
| |
Jes Sorensen wrote: > > >>>>> "Ed" == Ed Grimm <tgape@bigfoot.com> writes: > > Ed> On 26 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> Putting auto generated documents in the same directory as the > >> static ones is a bad idea imho. It makes it hard for people to keep > >> track of what can be deleted and what cannot. > > Ed> Wouldn't the fact that 'make clean' removes it be good enough? > Ed> How about adding a Documentation/Makefile, which also has a make > Ed> clean to get rid of them? > > This could work, but it is less clear and if you run around trying to > extract documentation from every C file in the kernel, which I asume > is the idea, then the Makefile doesn't know what documentation to > delete and what not to. > > I am not against putting auto extractable documentation in the code, > but I think it would be safer to put the output in a seperate > directory and not mix it with static files.
Currently the system only generates one huge, whopping kernel-api.html file. So it's really a non-issue (make clean takes care of it, as noted above).
But I agree with you -- kernel-doc.pl currently outputs man pages. And I think it would be handy to generate man pages for kernel API functions. (my patch only requires a little Makefile scripting in order to do that)
So, there should definitely be a "Documentation/man" directory or similar, which is treated just like the current "linux/modules" directory is now.
Jeff
-- Custom driver development | Never worry about theory as long Open source programming | as the machinery does what it's | supposed to do. -- R. A. Heinlein
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |