Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFE: provide python binding documentation #185

Open
jelly opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 11 comments
Open

RFE: provide python binding documentation #185

jelly opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 11 comments

Comments

@jelly
Copy link

jelly commented Nov 11, 2019

I was wondering if the project is open to providing python documentation build with sphinx possibly with some examples.

@pcmoore pcmoore changed the title provide python binding documentation RFE: provide python binding documentation Nov 11, 2019
@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Nov 11, 2019

Hi @jelly, I'm never going to object to more/better documentation! I can't say I'm very familiar with the standard Python documentation conventions, but we do have an open issue to convert our existing manpages to Markdown (see issue #83). I bring this up because it would be very nice to have our documentation (both manpages and Python docs) written in the same language.

It looks like Sphinx uses reStructuredText, yes? Does it support Markdown?

If so, I think that is fine, but we might want adjust our goals for the manpages from Markdown to reStructuredText as a result.

@jelly
Copy link
Author

jelly commented Nov 12, 2019

Usually the documentation is written with sphinx which can output html, and more formats. I am not to experienced with setting it up so I'll have to do some further research on what is possible and maintainable. (If I recall correctly sphinx can even determine on runtime which functions/constants a module has)

@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Nov 12, 2019

If you are willing to work on this @jelly I would really appreciate it; if there is anything we can do to help, please let us know!

@oxr463
Copy link

oxr463 commented Apr 10, 2020

@jelly have you begun working on this yet? If not I will pursue the pandoc option with markdown.

@jelly
Copy link
Author

jelly commented May 31, 2020

I have a branch here https://github.com/jelly/libseccomp/tree/pydocs but did not follow up

@oxr463
Copy link

oxr463 commented Jun 1, 2020

I've already converted the man pages to markdown, but if needed they can easily be converted to reStructuredText.

@jelly
Copy link
Author

jelly commented Jun 1, 2020

Cool, it's up to the maintainer to decide what he prefers :)

@pcmoore pcmoore added this to the v2.6.0 milestone Jun 6, 2020
@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Jun 6, 2020

Thanks everyone for continuing to look into this, I really appreciate the help!

@drakenclimber and I are busy trying to get the v2.5.0 release out the door, once we finish with that we can start taking a close look at this. Thanks for your patience!

@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Jun 6, 2020

Related issue: #61

@xmo-odoo
Copy link

xmo-odoo commented Feb 25, 2022

It looks like Sphinx uses reStructuredText, yes? Does it support Markdown?

I've already converted the man pages to markdown, but if needed they can easily be converted to reStructuredText.

FWIW Sphinx has supported Markdown for a few years (though MyST and markdown-it). It obviously doesn't give access to the best goodies like autodoc and domains1, but since the seccomp bindings use cython that probably doesn't matter too much.

Footnotes

  1. not entirely true, MyST provides role and directive extensions to markdown

@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Jan 7, 2024

In an effort to get v2.6.0 out sooner than later, I'm going to suggest we push this out to v2.7.0; if you have any concerns or objections please drop a comment.

@pcmoore pcmoore modified the milestones: v2.6.0, v2.7.0 Jan 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants