[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: new syntax-check rule for @acronym?
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:32:42 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:

> Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 03/24/2010 01:46 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>>     syntax-check test for this seems useful, to foster harmonization across
>>>>     GNU packages.  How about the patch below?
>>>> I have no objection, certainly.
>>> I pushed the patch below.
>>> +# Don't use Texinfo @acronym{} as it is not a good idea.
>>> +sc_texinfo_acronym:
>>> +   @grep -nE '@acronym{'                                           \
>>> +       $$($(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | grep -E '\.texi$$') &&               \
>>> +     { echo '$(ME): found use of Texinfo @acronym{}' 1>&2;         \
>>> +       exit 1; } || :
>> This hangs for non-GNU projects, like libvirt, that have no .texi
>> documentation.  We really need to make progress on the patch to refactor
>> maint.mk rules per Jose's ideas:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-02/msg00242.html
>> which would conveniently fix this rule in the process.
> IMHO, the address@hidden rule belongs in an optionally-enabled class
> of tests.  Otherwise, I'll end up disabling it in nearly every package
> I maintain.  I agree that it's not easy to maintain (esp if you don't
> automate checks for it), but I do find that using @acronym does add a
> tiny bit of useful mark-up, and it seems counter-productive to remove
> it globally.

There is a bunch of similar tests (e.g., what is the global
justification for sc_prohibit_strcmp or sc_GPL_version?  those seems
project specific to me) so an optional class may make sense -- however
it IS very easy to disable tests on a per-project basis, I do so in
several projects.  Libidn cfg.mk:

local-checks-to-skip = sc_prohibit_strcmp sc_prohibit_have_config_h     \
        sc_require_config_h sc_require_config_h_first                   \
        sc_prohibit_HAVE_MBRTOWC sc_program_name sc_trailing_blank      \
        sc_useless_cpp_parens sc_GPL_version sc_immutable_NEWS          \
        sc_two_space_separator_in_usage sc_m4_quote_check sc_po_check   \

GNU SASL cfg.mk:

local-checks-to-skip = sc_prohibit_strcmp sc_error_message_uppercase    \
        sc_prohibit_have_config_h sc_require_config_h                   \
        sc_require_config_h_first sc_unmarked_diagnostics               \
        sc_GPL_version sc_immutable_NEWS sc_copyright_check

I fear that having optional tests will lead to nobody using them.  By
enabling all tests by default, and forcing package maintainers to
actively do something to disable them, we at least make sure there is
some manual review of the situation on a per-project basis.

Of course, there is also the more specific question of whether @acronym
deserves to die, but the way I read Karl's suggestion to the automake
project, that is what I inferred.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]