dfaggioli/qemu
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

[openSUSE] Add packaging for documentation in info format #65

Closed
Thaodan wants to merge 3 commits from Thaodan/openSUSE/factory/info_package into factory
pull from: Thaodan/openSUSE/factory/info_package
merge into: dfaggioli:factory
Conversation 2 Commits 3 Files Changed 3 +40 -2
Thaodan commented 2024-04-02 19:46:10 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Add packaging for documentation in the info format.

The original source of the patch adding the info target is Guix and was proposed to upstream
in:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-03/msg04257.html

Add packaging for documentation in the info format. The original source of the patch adding the info target is Guix and was proposed to upstream in: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-03/msg04257.html
dfaggioli commented 2024-04-16 15:55:13 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Hello, and thanks for your contribution! Thanks also for providing the link to the upstream discussion.

It's an interesting topic and while I don't use info docs much myself, I see how it could be useful. My problem with this is that upstream does not seem keen on taking it for now, which means it might become a downstream only patch which we'll then have to carry ourselves. And however simple it looks, there's always the chance of clashes with new versions or fixes backported from upstream, which is something we really much would like to avoid.

I'll leave this open for now, (and I'll point it to my fellow QEMU package maintainers) to see what others think, but my inclination is to not deviate from upstream for something like this

Hello, and thanks for your contribution! Thanks also for providing the link to the upstream discussion. It's an interesting topic and while I don't use info docs much myself, I see how it could be useful. My problem with this is that upstream does not seem keen on taking it for now, which means it might become a downstream only patch which we'll then have to carry ourselves. And however simple it looks, there's always the chance of clashes with new versions or fixes backported from upstream, which is something we really much would like to avoid. I'll leave this open for now, (and I'll point it to my fellow QEMU package maintainers) to see what others think, but my inclination is to not deviate from upstream for something like this
Thaodan commented 2024-04-16 16:23:32 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

In the end it's your call but the patch is maintained by Guix and
doesn't cause any clashes with Qemu as it uses the bultin functionality
of Sphinx.

The packaging for Sphinx Texinfo is already done in openSUSE.

In the end it's your call but the patch is maintained by Guix and doesn't cause any clashes with Qemu as it uses the bultin functionality of Sphinx. The packaging for Sphinx Texinfo is already done in openSUSE.

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
bug
duplicate
enhancement
invalid
question
wontfix
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
dfaggioli
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: dfaggioli/qemu#65
Delete Branch "Thaodan/openSUSE/factory/info_package"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?