From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD6002F49EB; Wed, 17 Sep 2025 15:11:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758121872; cv=none; b=szj12TX+s8yNRGZM6Rn93821EMl49uM/ksrzv9Jrt89/ywmUvUKYq49qfQaHz1fJf+3wwpvc8Gn8hZQpBgz3amJZ91DMaqHmdLifPiocSGRJulw86kEvHLfI4SFrM13nm7VPnRUVr8UfvBcdYhIpJ/cmV3E62AMTKkAGDuQsjkc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758121872; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Zr9ly5vUCTSEt2ECzSEbT3wV+t5UqSaNiO+FAr4ESxw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YngckJ7H1CYkr4DMNvZLdzkOt4By/Glexy6G4vLN9heSGVDK1Y6Fd1VE2pAUlkP4hqYeGYMzd4WooN6TUoEUZ1gWJJa0ImceHcWw3CbSCF1b/SMxx6J5uZcq8dIhJFUUoyttPa/tzCzMjWeb+GZVduPi1fuxP7hYBboBjyhR/ug= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=DpPsVx+S; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="DpPsVx+S" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net BA2A240AFB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1758121862; bh=6l5JXS0ooZIaiqsm0blDM5iBQJ72/GZBEez8roRV8F0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=DpPsVx+SyU+34gLPGZe4OEi6BJlJL/auCV9k+1gg7M+XYd1RpIzzZ0LGE5U3J+wdk mFu3a+AzU/cAA/NSnVo/re3RXF+45mC+12D0HJngTaDNq2Jao3EXf8BD83MdpgXxQI wi5zntCePzTNZC+7AUQNnsnAuflCSD7MGcsN/ckCa/rb+Q8HzlRqyPXDPmogeywgG+ PVbXyCjBisNzPq666fzi23jBY4ANy+r9DwXR4QITn1OeSBjjjP7CV6+gVntkCTHVDA pjrSfwgiO5Q4SsvOsDomSZyCw+ENK0z4CyuUq3G4WDOCYSmb3aCyJhG003Aq6kp5DQ LpkztrmZYKIEg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA2A240AFB; Wed, 17 Sep 2025 15:11:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Akira Yokosawa , mchehab+huawei@kernel.org Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jani Nikula , Akira Yokosawa Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/21] tools/docs: sphinx-build-wrapper: add a wrapper for sphinx-build In-Reply-To: <1d454604-288d-4185-8567-836e06b3cbea@gmail.com> References: <4d4dc78a4e29f2478fd1c1a746378dc61a090ca3.1758018030.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> <1d454604-288d-4185-8567-836e06b3cbea@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 09:11:01 -0600 Message-ID: <875xdhazcq.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Akira Yokosawa writes: > Wait! In the cover-letter, you said: > > It should be noticed that it is out of the scope of this series > to change the implementation. Surely the process can be improved, > but first let's consolidate and document everything on a single > place. > > Removing current restriction on SPHINXDIRS does look inconsistent with > your own words to me. > > So, I guess I have to NAK 06/21 as well. Is there an actual problem with this change that we need to know about? I am not quite understanding the objection here. Thanks, jon