Re: [PATCH v2] Clarify Inline::C dependency (optional on Linux, required elsewhere)

["Štěpán Němec" <stepnem@smrk.net>]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 18:50:15 +0000
Eric Wong wrote:

> Štěpán Němec <stepnem@smrk.net> wrote:
>> -Numerous optional modules are likely to be useful as well:
>> +Numerous other modules are likely to be useful as well:
>
> What is the reasoning for this change?
> "optional" is an important point to state, IMHO.
> Using "other" is more ambiguous, I think.

We've now established that at least Inline::C is not optional on all
systems.  Is that really the only case?  (I mean, some of the modules
have "optional" again in their respective parentheticals: is that just
redundancy, or does it imply that the others are less optional?)  Even
if it _is_ the only case, isn't saying "optional" misleading?

>> @@ -76,8 +76,9 @@ Numerous optional modules are likely to be useful as well:
>>  - Inline::C                        deb: libinline-c-perl
>>                                     pkg: p5-Inline-C
>>                                     rpm: perl-Inline (or perl-Inline-C)
>> -                                   (speeds up process spawning on Linux,
>> -                                    see public-inbox-daemon(8))
>> +                                   (required for lei on *BSD; speeds up process
>> +                                    spawning on Linux, see
>> +                                    public-inbox-daemon(8))
>
> I think breaking up the lines on punctuation improves readability:
>
>                                    (required for lei on *BSD;
>                                     speeds up process spawning on Linux,
>                                     see public-inbox-daemon(8))

That's much better, thank you!

> I particularly dislike having "process" and "spawning"
> being on separate lines.

Yeah, it's horrible, but somehow your sane version didn't occur to me...

Thanks,

  Štěpán