On 11.01.2016 20:40, Stefan Tauner wrote:
Also, add a target to the makefile to build a flashrom.8.html with groff. To fix some formatting issues this adds some indention commands as well.
FIXME: svn:ignore for the html Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at
Makefile | 8 +++- flashrom.8.tmpl | 126 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:08:20 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
IIRC you said on IRC that you have a sed version of this. Is this patch obsolete?
Even better... I first diagnosed the problem wrongly. The actual problem was that apparently the BSD groffs could not call FKGRF correctly. Since this was only added to avoid duplicate code it is not a big issue to simply duplicate the function as in this patch.
Code looks good.
There are quite a few hyperlinks to flashrom.org in there. Some use http, some use https, some use www.flashrom.org, some use flashrom.org. We should decide upon a canonical URL scheme and use that throughout. I'd like https, but I have no preference about using www or not.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 03:27:04 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
On 11.01.2016 20:40, Stefan Tauner wrote:
Also, add a target to the makefile to build a flashrom.8.html with groff. To fix some formatting issues this adds some indention commands as well.
FIXME: svn:ignore for the html Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at
Makefile | 8 +++- flashrom.8.tmpl | 126 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:08:20 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
IIRC you said on IRC that you have a sed version of this. Is this patch obsolete?
Even better... I first diagnosed the problem wrongly. The actual problem was that apparently the BSD groffs could not call FKGRF correctly. Since this was only added to avoid duplicate code it is not a big issue to simply duplicate the function as in this patch.
Code looks good.
There are quite a few hyperlinks to flashrom.org in there. Some use http, some use https, some use www.flashrom.org, some use flashrom.org. We should decide upon a canonical URL scheme and use that throughout. I'd like https, but I have no preference about using www or not.
Fine with me... no-www preferred because of less characters and I have never understood the www prefixes anyway :) If I understood you correctly you want this in the same patch?
On 14.01.2016 00:19, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 03:27:04 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Code looks good.
There are quite a few hyperlinks to flashrom.org in there. Some use http, some use https, some use www.flashrom.org, some use flashrom.org. We should decide upon a canonical URL scheme and use that throughout. I'd like https, but I have no preference about using www or not.
Fine with me... no-www preferred because of less characters and I have never understood the www prefixes anyway :) If I understood you correctly you want this in the same patch?
I figured that since you touched those lines anyway and even fixed one URL, it would reduce churn to have it all in one patch.
Side note: I didn't verify all the extra groff trickery and trust you on that.
With the URLs adjusted, this is Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:18:35 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
On 14.01.2016 00:19, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 03:27:04 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Code looks good.
There are quite a few hyperlinks to flashrom.org in there. Some use http, some use https, some use www.flashrom.org, some use flashrom.org. We should decide upon a canonical URL scheme and use that throughout. I'd like https, but I have no preference about using www or not.
Fine with me... no-www preferred because of less characters and I have never understood the www prefixes anyway :) If I understood you correctly you want this in the same patch?
I figured that since you touched those lines anyway and even fixed one URL, it would reduce churn to have it all in one patch.
Side note: I didn't verify all the extra groff trickery and trust you on that.
With the URLs adjusted, this is Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Thanks, committed in r1913.
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Stefan Tauner