[PATCH] docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst

[PATCH] docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst

[Markus Heiser]

The documentation and TOCs are organized in a manner of a tree. Adding a TOC to
the root, which refers to a file which is located in a subfolder forms a
grid. Those TOCs are a bit confusing and thats why we get additional error
messages while building partial documentation::

  $ make SPHINXDIRS=process htmldocs
  ...
  checking consistency... Documentation/process/license-rules.rst: \
  WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree

To fix it, the *root-license-TOC* is replaced by a reference and the
'license-roles.txt' is added to the Documentation/process/index.rst TOC.

BTW: there was an old licences remark in Documentation/process/howto.rst which
is also updated, mentioning SPDX and pointing to the license-rules.rst

Signed-off-by: Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de>
---
 Documentation/index.rst                 |  5 +----
 Documentation/process/howto.rst         | 13 +++++++------
 Documentation/process/index.rst         |  1 +
 Documentation/process/license-rules.rst |  2 ++
 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/index.rst b/Documentation/index.rst
index 5d310d960f82..eb89d5877cea 100644
--- a/Documentation/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/index.rst
@@ -22,10 +22,7 @@ The following describes the license of the Linux kernel source code
 (GPLv2), how to properly mark the license of individual files in the source
 tree, as well as links to the full license text.
 
-.. toctree::
-   :maxdepth: 2
-
-   process/license-rules.rst
+* :ref:`kernel_licensing`
 
 User-oriented documentation
 ---------------------------
diff --git a/Documentation/process/howto.rst b/Documentation/process/howto.rst
index 130bf0f48875..9a3dc9b63e1b 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/howto.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/howto.rst
@@ -57,12 +57,13 @@ of doing things.
 Legal Issues
 ------------
 
-The Linux kernel source code is released under the GPL.  Please see the
-file, COPYING, in the main directory of the source tree, for details on
-the license.  If you have further questions about the license, please
-contact a lawyer, and do not ask on the Linux kernel mailing list.  The
-people on the mailing lists are not lawyers, and you should not rely on
-their statements on legal matters.
+The Linux kernel source code is released under the GPL.  Please see the file
+COPYING in the main directory of the source tree. The Linux kernel licensing
+rules and how to use `SPDX <https://spdx.org/>`_ identifiers in source code is
+descibed in :ref:`Documentation/process/license-rules.rst <kernel_licensing>`.
+If you have further questions about the license, please contact a lawyer, and do
+not ask on the Linux kernel mailing list.  The people on the mailing lists are
+not lawyers, and you should not rely on their statements on legal matters.
 
 For common questions and answers about the GPL, please see:
 
diff --git a/Documentation/process/index.rst b/Documentation/process/index.rst
index 37bd0628b6ee..c0b3bd25dbae 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/index.rst
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Below are the essential guides that every developer should read.
 .. toctree::
    :maxdepth: 1
 
+   license-rules
    howto
    code-of-conflict
    development-process
diff --git a/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
index 8ea26325fe3f..2bb8c0fc2238 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 
+.. _kernel_licensing:
+
 Linux kernel licensing rules
 ============================
 
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:43:12 +0200
Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de> wrote:

> The documentation and TOCs are organized in a manner of a tree. Adding a TOC to
> the root, which refers to a file which is located in a subfolder forms a
> grid. Those TOCs are a bit confusing and thats why we get additional error
> messages while building partial documentation::
> 
>   $ make SPHINXDIRS=process htmldocs
>   ...
>   checking consistency... Documentation/process/license-rules.rst: \
>   WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree
> 
> To fix it, the *root-license-TOC* is replaced by a reference and the
> 'license-roles.txt' is added to the Documentation/process/index.rst TOC.
> 
> BTW: there was an old licences remark in Documentation/process/howto.rst which
> is also updated, mentioning SPDX and pointing to the license-rules.rst

So those are two separate changes and should really have been in two
different patches.  I guess we can let that slide just this
once...applied.

I do have to wonder if the licensing rules are *really* the most
important thing in our docs - the thing that readers should encounter
first, before anything else.  I think I'll revisit that at another time...

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH] docs: tidy up TOCs and refs to license-rules.rst

[Markus Heiser]

Am Freitag, den 31.08.2018, 16:50 -0600 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:43:12 +0200
> Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@darmarit.de> wrote:
> 
> > The documentation and TOCs are organized in a manner of a tree. Adding a
> > TOC to
> > the root, which refers to a file which is located in a subfolder forms a
> > grid. Those TOCs are a bit confusing and thats why we get additional error
> > messages while building partial documentation::
> > 
> >   $ make SPHINXDIRS=process htmldocs
> >   ...
> >   checking consistency... Documentation/process/license-rules.rst: \
> >   WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree
> > 
> > To fix it, the *root-license-TOC* is replaced by a reference and the
> > 'license-roles.txt' is added to the Documentation/process/index.rst TOC.
> > 
> > BTW: there was an old licences remark in Documentation/process/howto.rst
> > which
> > is also updated, mentioning SPDX and pointing to the license-rules.rst
> 
> So those are two separate changes and should really have been in two
> different patches.  I guess we can let that slide just this
> once...applied.

Ah, OK .. thanks!

> I do have to wonder if the licensing rules are *really* the most
> important thing in our docs - the thing that readers should encounter
> first, before anything else.  I think I'll revisit that at another time...

OT: my patch was to fix the structural licensing mess. Feel free to change,
what you have been applied with commit #aa19a176df95

-- Markus --