Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 09/11] doc: refresh headers list

[David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>]

Hello John,

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of David Marchand
>> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:51 PM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: thomas.monjalon@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 09/11] doc: refresh headers list
>>
>> Since we are going to remove a header in next commit, let's first refresh
>> documentation.
>
> I don't like these parts of the docs that list files since they
> go out of date quite easily and, in general, the same information
> can be conveyed by just listing the directories. (That isn't
> future-proof either but it should be less subject to change.)

Well, we could imagine something automatic (in the build process), but
I agree that the quickest solution is to get rid of it.

>
> In this case you could just remove everything in the console section
> after the output from "ls x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc" like this:
>
>
> Each build directory contains include files, libraries, and applications like the following::
>
>     $ ls
>     app                       tools
>     config                    MAINTAINERS
>     Makefile                  GNUmakefile
>     drivers                   mk
>     examples                  pkg
>     doc                       README
>     lib                       scripts
>     LICENSE.GPL               LICENSE.LGPL
>     i686-native-linuxapp-gcc  x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc
>     i686-native-linuxapp-icc  x86_64-native-linuxapp-icc
>
>     $ ls x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc
>     app  build  include  kmod  lib  Makefile
>

Well, from my pov, it is the same issue here.
How about just removing all those files listings ?
I am not sure they really help.

If we go with this, I will send this patch out of the series since it
would not really belong to it.


Regards,
-- 
David Marchand