Here's a set of nine patches that improve chapter 1 in ways that make it easier to follow for first-timers, and more in-line with existing crossdev tools. The goal of these patches was to push most of the knowledge from the "Hand-craft an Image" HOWTO from the Neuvoo wiki to the Gentoo Embedded documentation (where it belongs), but this goal has been partly unmet. While there is still more work to do, and since I will be very busy and I don't want these patches idling on my hard-drive, this is a good first step in the right direction. Specific details about what is "fixed" is inside the patch files. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Created attachment 217350 [details, diff] Multiple misc fixes to terminology.
Created attachment 217352 [details, diff] Added a note to Overview of cross-compiler.xml talking about how chroots keep the sysadmin away.
Created attachment 217354 [details, diff] Minor grammar fixes in the intro to crossdev
Created attachment 217356 [details, diff] Attempted to define what a tuple is
Created attachment 217358 [details, diff] Lots of cleanups and additions for cross-compiler.xml
Created attachment 217359 [details, diff] Lemme alone about images/ This patch can be ignored. It was an addition to .gitignore so that it would not continue to bug me about an images symlink I had created to make my local copy of the documentation work better. I have only included it so folks aren't wondering where patch #6 went. ;)
Created attachment 217360 [details, diff] Cleaned up intro: removed duplicate definitions, and fixed incorrect "Tuples" tagging.
Created attachment 217361 [details, diff] Lots of changes to cross-compiling-packages.xml.
Created attachment 217363 [details, diff] In cross-compiling-kernel.xml, small wording fix for kernel source installation, and additional explanation for INSTALL_MOD_PATH
nightmorph, do these patches need updating so they still apply?
Comment on attachment 217359 [details, diff] Lemme alone about images/ This is useless; it looks like you wrapped up a .gitignore in all your git commits and then got it included in your autogenerated patchset. Oops?
Please create new versions of 0005 and 0008: For 0005, rebase your work on the changes I just committed to all the docs so far. 0005 wouldn't apply even before I started editing stuff, so something was broken. For 0008, same thing: the patch won't apply. Also, you snuck in an update to intro.xml: please split them out into separate patches. It makes it easier to see what's changed, and easier to apply. For all the patches, I haven't actually been able to directly apply them & commit, but that's only because there were lots of existing formatting changes that needed to be made to the docs. Your actual content was just fine.
(In reply to comment #11) > (From update of attachment 217359 [details, diff]) > This is useless; it looks like you wrapped up a .gitignore in all your git > commits and then got it included in your autogenerated patchset. Oops? > Yea, that shouldn't have been there. Sorry about that. (In reply to comment #12) > Please create new versions of 0005 and 0008: OK, I will rebase 005, split up 008 a bit more, and rebase 008 as well. > For all the patches, I haven't actually been able to directly apply them & > commit, but that's only because there were lots of existing formatting changes > that needed to be made to the docs. Your actual content was just fine. Do these patches need rebasing too, or can you handle them from here?
(In reply to comment #13) > Do these patches need rebasing too, or can you handle them from here? The ones that are crossed out are fixed in CVS. Just #5 and #8 need reworking.
Created attachment 240005 [details, diff] Rebased 005 and 006 patches This patch is rebased on latest CVS. It applies to /proj/en/base/embedded/.
What's the status on accepting these patches? Are the changes still acceptable? I can rebase them (once again) if they don't apply.
Azamat, what do you think about this translation? :)
Comment on attachment 217350 [details, diff] Multiple misc fixes to terminology. i've reverted the 2nd half of this change: http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/cross-compiler.xml?r1=1.12&r2=1.13
Comment on attachment 217354 [details, diff] Minor grammar fixes in the intro to crossdev the tense was correct here. it is talking about creating a cross-compiler *by hand*, and that is still a pita. using crossdev is not doing it by hand. as such i've reverted the first line change: http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/cross-compiler.xml?r1=1.13&r2=1.14
Comment on attachment 217356 [details, diff] Attempted to define what a tuple is there is no "for crossdev". the tuple notation comes from the GNU project. there's also an entire chapter for explaining tuples: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/tuples.xml unfortunately, it looks like it was accidentally delisted: http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/index.xml?r1=1.15&r2=1.16 http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/intro.xml?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 so i've gutted this new tuple section and just linked in the proper page: http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/intro.xml?r1=1.7&r2=1.8
Comment on attachment 217360 [details, diff] Cleaned up intro: removed duplicate definitions, and fixed incorrect "Tuples" tagging. ignoring the tuples part (deleted per above), this is fine
i have to go through the rest as they're bigger, but in general, it'd be better if updates to embedded docs went through the embedded team and not the docs team. the docs team is great for general typos/syntax/etc..., but they're not domain experts in the embedded space.
everything's on the wiki now; no need to go through the docs team (or anyone else) with guidexml patches.
I have applied (and added additional editing) to the Embedded Handbook based off this patch. Find the Embedded Handbook on the wiki at this location: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Embedded_Handbook
Due to length, I did not include all the edit revisions, but I have credited Jacob Godserv in the relevant edits in the edit description.
I really appreciate that the edits here were migrated, as outdated as they are. Most projects don't put that kind of effort in. I didn't realize you were still interested in them.
