From: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Felipe Contreras <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, "Martin Ågren" <email@example.com>, "brian m . carlson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] doc: allow the user to provide ASCIIDOC_EXTRA Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 07:39:28 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YKJV8HBYCA7hEQiX@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 05:53:25AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > It's meant for the caller of "make". Your proposed use is within > > doc-diff, but any user running "make ASCIIDOC_EXTRA=foo" would see the > > different behavior. > > Yeah, they would, but I don't think it would be wrong behavior. It depends what they're trying to do. If they write: make ASCIIDOC_EXTRA=--one-extra-option then they probably intend to to add to the options we set. If they write: make ASCIIDOC_EXTRA='-acompat-mode -atabsize=4 ...etc...' with the intent of replicating the flags but changing or removing some elements, then it would no longer do what they want. I don't mean to imply one is more right than the other (I'd suspect even that the override behavior is more likely to be what somebody wants). I'm mostly pointing out that this is unlike the rest of our Makefiles, which do not ever use override (and that the effect is visible to the caller, depending on what they want to do). > > I'd probably call it ASCIIDOC_FLAGS (like we have CFLAGS and LDFLAGS > > that are meant for users to inform us of extra flags they'd like > > passed). > > Right, but Makefiles do override those, like: > > override CFLAGS += -fPIC > > Otherwise builds may fail. Some Makefiles do, but in this project we have not historically used override. Instead, we provide defaults for things like CFLAGS, expect the use to replace them if they like, and then aggregate them (along with other internal variables) into things like ALL_CFLAGS. > > Of course that may not solve your problem in a sense; if you want > > doc-diff to override it, then that might conflict with a theoretical > > ASCIIDOC_FLAGS somebody set in their config.mak (but we really are in > > the realm of hypothetical here). > > Setting ASCIIDOC_FLAGS in config.mk would not override the > user-supplied flags any more than setting them in the Makefile (they are > virtually the same thing as one includes the other). > > It's only if the user has `override ASCIIDOC_FLAGS` in config.mk that > such a problem would arise. And that's really hypothetical. I mean that if your doc-diff runs: make USE_ASCIIDOCTOR=Yes ASCIIDOC_FLAGS=-adocdate=01/01/1970 then that will override anything the user put into config.mak. If they had some option like: ASCIIDOC_FLAGS = --load-path=/some/special/directory they need for asciidoctor to run correctly on their system, then things would break for them. But we don't even have a user-facing ASCIIDOC_FLAGS now, and nobody is asking for it, so it's pretty hypothetical (I'd guess somebody in this situation would just set ASCIIDOC="asciidoctor --load-path=...", and that already doesn't work with doc-diff). -Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-17 11:39 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-05-14 12:14 [PATCH 00/11] doc: asciidoctor: direct man page creation and fixes Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 01/11] doc: allow the user to provide ASCIIDOC_EXTRA Felipe Contreras 2021-05-15 9:32 ` Jeff King 2021-05-15 9:39 ` Jeff King 2021-05-15 12:13 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-05-17 8:57 ` Jeff King 2021-05-17 10:53 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-05-17 11:39 ` Jeff King [this message] 2021-05-17 16:50 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 02/11] doc: doc-diff: allow more than one flag Felipe Contreras 2021-05-15 9:37 ` Jeff King 2021-05-15 12:11 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 03/11] doc: doc-diff: set docdate manually Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 15:43 ` Martin Ågren 2021-05-14 20:33 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 04/11] doc: use asciidoctor to build man pages directly Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 15:38 ` Martin Ågren 2021-05-14 20:26 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 05/11] doc: asciidoctor: add linkgit macros in man pages Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 06/11] doc: join mansource and manversion Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 07/11] doc: add man pages workaround for asciidoctor Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 08/11] doc: asciidoctor: add hack for xrefs Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 09/11] doc: asciidoctor: add hack to improve links Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 10/11] doc: asciidoctor: add support for baseurl Felipe Contreras 2021-05-14 12:14 ` [PATCH 11/11] doc: asciidoctor: cleanup man page hack Felipe Contreras
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=YKJV8HBYCA7hEQiX@coredump.intra.peff.net \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 01/11] doc: allow the user to provide ASCIIDOC_EXTRA' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).