On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@s-opensource.com wrote:
Em Sun, 14 May 2017 14:05:09 -0700 Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org escreveu:
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@s-opensource.com wrote:
As just one book (lsm) was missing conversion, let's convert it and store as if it were a plain text file under Documentation/lsm.txt, adding a notice that it requires update.
I could probably fold this change into my rst-ification of Documentation/security/
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=kspp/r...
Specifically, the new Documentation/security/LSM.rst was rather short. I think your lsm.txt and this one could be likely merged.
Yeah, makes sense. I'm not sure what would be the best way to proceed, as, currently, after removing lsm.tmpl, my patch series remove DocBook, as everything else was already removed.
I see a few ways for us to proceed:
- You could submit the patches you have so far to docs -next,
to be merged before my patch series;
I sent my series already (it got CCed to linux-doc); it's collected a few Acks already. I'm not sure what the timing for that means, though.
- I could send you a patch based on your tree. I'll need to
rebase this series to be applied on the top of your tree + docs-next, with would require that your patch series would be merged before, at docs -next;
- we can handle both series independently. When both gets
merged at docs -next, a simple patch, either written by you or me, could merge both files.
I don't see a reason for us to make the trees depend on each other. Let's just proceed as-is and whenever we're in a position to merge the LSM docs, we can do that.
IMO, (3) is simpler, but if you prefer, we can do on some other way.
Agreed.
-Kees