Review on user/rsb/configuration.rst

[Gedare Bloom]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 11:07 AM Cláudio Maia <clrrm at isep.ipp.pt> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have reviewed the file user/rsb/configuration.rst and I want to send a patch with my proposed changes. However, before doing that I would like to clarify some aspects before sending the patch, namely:
>
> - In the section 13.5.7 it is mentioned the following "The Device Tree Compiler source code can be downloaded from http://www.jdl.com/software.". However this web site is offline and I'm not sure if it is supposed to be online or it the went down between the time the documentation was produced and now. Should we correct the link (if so, which should be the new one?) or leave it as it is for example purposes and put a note on the document stating that it is offline?
>
The RSB recipe for dtc now uses https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/utils/dtc/

I guess the example should be updated, consistent with what is
available in the RSB tree. Can you open a ticket with milestone 6.1?
patches welcome :)

> - In section 13.5.1.1, the "xy" compression format is mentioned, however a search on google revealed no such format. Is this a typo or does this format really exist?
>
xz, patch sent.

> - In section 13.5.2.1, the following text appears"See <<X1,``_configdir``>> variable for details.". What is "<<X1,``_configdir``>>" supposed to mean? Should it be a cross reference to some other place?
>
That's an xref leftover before conversion of this doc from asciidoc to
sphinx/rst. I believe it intends to orient the reader to the
definition of _configdir provided at
https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/user/rsb/configuration.html#configuration

I just sent a patch that updates the link.

> - In section 13.5.7.4., it is mentioned a "|DESTDIR|" and a "DISTDIR". I believe there is a typo on the second one, as it is not mentioned anywhere else on the text in the page. Can someone please confirm if my judgement is correct?
>
This is the dtc example, add to the ticket.  And yes, it appears to be a typo.

> - In section 13.5.8.2, a different notation is used using + signs, as for instance "+%prep+" and "+%source+" which I also believe it is a typo and these should be using this notation``%prep``. Again, can please someone confirm this?
>
Another holdover from the conversion to sphinx/rst. Patch sent.

> Regards,
> Cláudio

Thanks for your review,
Gedare

> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel