Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936472AbcKQSCB (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:02:01 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f196.google.com ([209.85.216.196]:33493 "EHLO mail-qt0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753617AbcKQSB7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:01:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2923918.nyphv1Ma7d@wuerfel> References: <20161107075524.49d83697@vento.lan> <11020459.EheIgy38UF@wuerfel> <20161116182633.74559ffd@vento.lan> <2923918.nyphv1Ma7d@wuerfel> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:02:50 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bFlEEiT2PpHgffNiTOKEyalZ1g4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Including images on Sphinx documents To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Josh Triplett , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Media Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1496 Lines: 36 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > [adding Linus for clarification] > > I understood the concern as being about binary files that you cannot > modify with classic 'patch', which is a separate issue. No. That is how I *noticed* the issue. Those stupid pdf binary files have been around forever, I just didn't notice until the Fedora people started complaining about the patches. My real problem is not "binary" or even "editable", but SOURCE CODE. It's like including a "vmlinux" image in the git tree: sure, you can technically "edit" it with a hex editor, but that doesn't change the basic issue: it's not the original source code. I don't want to see generated binary crap. That goes for png, that goes for gif, that goes for pdf - and in fact that goes for svg *too*, if the actual source of the svg was something else, and it was generated from some other data. We have makefiles, but more importantly, few enough people actually *generate* the documentation, that I think if it's an option to just fix sphinx, we should do that instead. If it means that you have to have some development version of sphinx, so be it. Most people read the documentation either directly in the unprocessed text-files ("source code") or on the web (by searching for pre-formatted docs) that I really don't think we need to worry too much about the toolchain. But what we *should* worry about is having the kernel source tree contain source. Linus