This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GSoc 2015 man-pages proposal: a parser for glibc feature test macros
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com
- Cc: "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, linux-man <linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:43:33 -0500
- Subject: Re: GSoc 2015 man-pages proposal: a parser for glibc feature test macros
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKgNAkgXgVjNDU=aSVXfdZ5xmo6TZ6qCXhVRNBqte69u6Kas3A at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 02/19/2015 03:30 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I wonder if I might be able to engage you as a backup mentor for a
> GSoC project that I am proposing here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/gsoc_2015.html
>
> The basic idea is to produce a parser for glibc code to tell answer
> the questions: what feature test macros (FTMs) can be defined to
> expose the definition of function foo(). The purpose is then to use
> that information to update FTM information contained in the man pages.
> However, it would of course also be useful information for the glibc
> manual, should the project wish to start documenting such things. (I
> believe this information is little documented in the manual at the
> moment.)
>
> What do you think of the idea? And would you be willing to be a backup
> mentor? (I expect little effort to be involved on your part, but GSoc
> requires two mentors for a proposal.)
>
> BTW, if any other glibc maintainer would be willing to act as a backup
> mentor, I'd be happy hear from you.
I would be happy to be a backup mentor.
The idea sounds interesting. I don't know that all combinations of
FTMs are designed to be allowed, and I expect that the result will
always need some human expert cleanup. Therefore it would be good
to have glibc developer review of the results. I'm not suggesting
I should be that reviewer, but the community should review to make
sure it's correct.
Cheers,
Carlos.