[PATCH 6/6] user: Remove nit-picky warnings.

Chris Johns chrisj at rtems.org
Mon Feb 25 22:52:11 UTC 2019

On 26/2/19 9:32 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 4:14 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org
> <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>> wrote:
>     On 22/2/19 5:46 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>     > On 21/02/2019 22:20, Chris Johns wrote:
>     >> On 21/2/19 5:13 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>     >>> On 21/02/2019 03:43,chrisj at rtems.org <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>  wrote:
>     >>>> diff --git a/user/bsps/bsps-powerpc.rst b/user/bsps/bsps-powerpc.rst
>     >>>> index 0ee51d1..365571f 100644
>     >>>> --- a/user/bsps/bsps-powerpc.rst
>     >>>> +++ b/user/bsps/bsps-powerpc.rst
>     >>>> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Boot via U-Boot
>     >>>>    The application executable file (ELF file) must be converted to an
>     U-Boot
>     >>>>    image.  Use the following commands:
>     >>>>    -::
>     >>>> +.. code-block:: shell
>     >>>>          powerpc-rtems5-objcopy -O binary app.exe app.bin
>     >>>>        gzip -9 -f -c app.bin > app.bin.gz
>     >>> I think the "shell" syntax highlighting is quite erratic. I would rather use
>     >>> "none".
>     >> I think a list of shell commands is ok, ie like a script, I suspect it is
>     when
>     >> there is output mixed in as well.
>     >
>     > The colouring of "variables" and numbers is also quite odd sometimes. I
>     found no
>     > benefit in using it.
>     I only updated what was broken, the pigment parser could not detect the format
>     and generated a warning so I used what we had to be consistent. I agree the
>     colouring can be off when output is present and it is messy to view.
>     There is a default format of `c` so we need to select what is used or we will
>     always have warnings or we have the possibility of false colouring ...
>      http://pygments.org/docs/lexers/
>     I have not figured out how to disable colouring on specific blocks.
> I battled this converting the RSB content for inclusion in the Users Guide.
> It was a pain to pick one which worked and looked right. I don't expect we
> have them all right. And there are so many, I don't know that we will catch
> them all easily. :(

A bit more research shows `none` should disable highlighting. I can fix my patch
to use that.

>     >> I have used `$` in shell command lists to indicate a `user` prompt and a
>     command
>     >> to enter and `#` for `root`, looking at your Quick Start changes you do
>     not use
>     >> a prompt. Should these be made consistent?
>     >
>     > Omitting the '$' or whatever has the benefit that you can copy and past
>     directly
>     > multiple commands from the example to your terminal.
>     Hmm ... I copy and paste commands in terminal windows all the time and my
>     terminals have a prompt I need to select around cause a prompt is kind of
>     important. I see this as no different when using our docs when a prompt is
>     present.
>     Amar and I had a long discussion about this exact topic when the conversion was
>     performed and I started on the User Manual. We agreed commands and output was to
>     be as close to what a user sees. This however is not possible because
>     differences in hosts, versions of tools, size of output and other things results
>     in differences but the idea was to show the command entered and output generated
>     was enough for the user to match what they see with what is documented.
>     I see you have varied from what was consistently present. I find this layout ...
>      https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/user/start/tools.html
>     ... confusing where you have separate unlabelled boxes of commands and then
>     output requiring the user to assume or learn the next box is output from a
>     command previously listed.
>     How does a new user determine the section is a list of shell commands or output
>     if they have no idea and are learning?
>     We how have 2 styles in this document and I prefer the command and output being
>     together and with `$` for a user prompt and `#` for a root prompt. If it is
>     decided this is to change when we should change all cases in the manual.
> Any idea which is more common? I don't have a strong opinion. The example you
> posted a link to has text which clearly states "this is the output" so I don't
> have a big issue with that. 

Are you OK with both approaches being used and present in the same doc?

I know it is small issue but these things tend to get exposed with new users.


More information about the devel mailing list