[PATCH 6/6] user: Remove nit-picky warnings.
chrisj at rtems.org
Wed Feb 27 06:47:41 UTC 2019
On 27/2/19 5:42 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 27/02/2019 07:30, Chris Johns wrote:
>> diff --git a/README.txt b/README.txt
>> index e002f60..115d08d 100644
>> --- a/README.txt
>> +++ b/README.txt
>> @@ -415,14 +415,34 @@ existing documentation for an example and if unsure ask.
>> 5 ^^^^^^ Sub-sub-sub-section
>> 6 ~~~~~~ Sub-sub-sub-sub-section
>> -5. For literal output, such as shell commands and code use '::' at the
>> - edge of the previous paragraph. Use the '.. code-block::' with
>> - 'c' for C code and 'shell' for shell code and terminal output. If you need
>> - line number use:
>> +5. For literal output, such as shell commands and code do not use '::'
>> + at the trailing edge of the previous paragraph as it generates
>> + warnings as the autodetect fails to find a suitable format. Use the
>> + '.. code-block::' with a suitable lexical label. The lexers are:
>> + Use the short names. For C code use 'c' code and 'shell' for shell
>> + scripts and for terminal output use 'none'.
> I would not use 'shell' for commands. For example in
> .. code-block:: shell
> ../configure --enable-rtemsbsp=qoriq_e6500_32 \
> QORIQ_IS_HYPERVISOR_GUEST=1 \
> QORIQ_UART_0_ENABLE=0 \
> QORIQ_UART_1_ENABLE=0 \
> the "variables" QORIQ_IS_HYPERVISOR_GUEST, etc. are highlighted and the numeric
> "values" 0, etc. are highlighted differently. Is this useful? I don't think so.
> In real shell scripts with variables, loops, conditions and whatever maybe it
> makes sense to use syntax highlighting.
Is this a bug with the pigments tool?
>> If you need line number
>> + use:
>> .. code-block:: shell
> It seems there is a difference between the HTML and PDF output in terms of line
> numbering. In the PDF I see the line numbers event without this option.
That is a latex setting we have on.
More information about the devel