From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 745C43B9922; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786626962; cv=none; b=rFDEWUeFXIGFZ6WHRMfubB0bJxztEJ8l7AeRlB911gRyYGfKVgYiv1kUgI9o6M7L1S1IpArm09HnsQBqYOluxd7inpOlBmSX4ev1TS/qaZ8F626Ytw3mfvEP3Z4CsmU48K/plGGfDmJAxHQzABBwrDhzVfD7hiCYLa75Vd7ZcDo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786626962; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JuVUoKayiiL7qIdW39da2OcshqPAHX5dg6xMBzLZVqs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OxhuGenI1vme0Fr787/27SDPnpUqBjgpty3e9y8XJj5fzEqVyFr00jwMbEaBjsd5tTKZfwWrXVGjoVeCxVyCf92Qi4ev2b3sGKkMTl++ye4MCETwlER4hxF0LCUjWEgw4y1Vu4yViEjCRzfbcJRJfwcbqa1PZHlHllifVlJ/KBI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=gz59xaAc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="gz59xaAc" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net CE883408EE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1786626955; bh=CJOUmOrM8iHXXIY7dV6uC8aAvdcDOoC5XB9mKJMan54=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=gz59xaAcRdVhw6JA+IdG6B1Lu1eFLylxKVmFbhY8bh12+/zIO/+/J7nFYCXWNYUWI dOOeQA+plFt5cSuCVQW+kR4Yk+JUlDV9xw4/jrRPpZ0C620V/sR5MnTKy7+t+jIaN/ buZu01a03a0B7vV01EbqvmdoE2JA2kyWl2qjrQhc4WuUh/PEmHGrwIkLDG9Yepy7Ae C5csBRmGb3GU0OpWXdvP721Uo5xZU4v7D2E2m88DApUBMSwu8vQB/QMfR8AUv1iUYl udqrWewaJsnXGuJsmNum6qdSJ5kWrRzHXmu2M+aVHJ76bEnTXhro+fxmR/ylHZ7oa5 RM5Vn8ZNxov4w== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:814::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE883408EE; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:15:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Manuel Ebner , Shuah Khan , Miguel Ojeda , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn?= Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Alice Ryhl , Trevor Gross , Danilo Krummrich , Daniel Almeida , Tamir Duberstein , Alexandre Courbot , Onur =?utf-8?Q?=C3=96zkan?= , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt Cc: Manuel Ebner , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Docs: software-requirements.rst replace optional tag with footnotes In-Reply-To: <20260812122426.1636227-2-manuelebnerli@mailbox.org> References: <20260812120805.1631430-3-manuelebnerli@mailbox.org> <20260812122426.1636227-2-manuelebnerli@mailbox.org> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 07:15:54 -0600 Message-ID: <87tsoyi2k5.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Manuel Ebner writes: > The optional tag isn't obvious nor defined. Therefore replace with footnotes > like the one of Sphinx. > > Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner > --- > .../process/software-requirements.rst | 22 ++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Explaining the optionals seems like a fine idea. I'm a bit less convinced about the mess of footnotes. Especially since many of the entries that are *not* marked as optional really are. You only need e2fsprogs if you're using ext4. gdb only if you're wanting to run a debugger. jfsutils seems truly optional, etc. Even GCC is optional if you're using Clang. I'm not sure what would be best...perhaps replace the --version field (which people can figure out) with an explanation of when each dependency would be needed? jon