[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] docs: rstfy vfio-ap documentation

From: Pierre Morel
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] docs: rstfy vfio-ap documentation
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:57:31 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

On 2020-02-18 13:44, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:54:37 +0000
Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 18:38, Pierre Morel <address@hidden>
wrote:> However it may be because I do not use the right tools.
Did not find which one I am suppose to use.
Currently using:
rst2latex vfio-ap.rst > vfio-ap.tex && pdflatex vfio-ap.tex

The only supported way to build the docs is with Sphinx.

Option 1:

If you have the right versions of the tools installed
then running "make" in the usual way will build HTML docs
into the docs/ subdirectory of your build directory.
Passing --enable-docs to configure will cause it to complain
if you're missing a tool rather than silently not building
the docs. This is what we expect most users to be doing.

Option 2:

You can run Sphinx 'manually' with something like
  sphinx-build docs /tmp/sphinx-out
which will build a single big fat manual into the
specified output directory (here /tmp/sphinx-out).
This option is provided mostly so that sites like
'readthedocs' can produce the documentation without having
to run our Makefiles.

PDF is not an officially supported (by us) output format,
but if you really want it you can generate it with
  sphinx-build -b latex docs /tmp/sphinx-out
  cd /tmp/sphinx-out
which will generate a QEMU.pdf in /tmp/sphinx-out.

We're unlikely to want to make tweaks to the documentation
sources to fix infelicities in the formatting of the PDF,

FWIW, using option 2 to produce a pdf seems to end up with something
decent-looking with these patches applied. (Lots of warnings from
LaTex, but that seems preexisting.)

OK, then I effectively did not use the right tools. Sorry for this and thanks for having leaning again.

For the content I was OK with all so:
Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <address@hidden>

and thanks for the work.

Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

reply via email to

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