Re: [PATCH 5/5] Docs: software-requirements.rst replace optional tag with footnotes

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> The optional tag isn't obvious nor defined. Therefore replace with footnotes
> like the one of Sphinx.
>
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../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