[Buildroot] [PATCH v4 2/2] manual: update for multiple global patch dirs

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire
<patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ryan Barnett
> <rjbarnet at rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
>> Thomas D, Arnout,
>>
>> Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote on 12/17/2013
>> 07:30:01 AM:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be>
>> wrote:
>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -For a specific version <packageversion> of a specific package
>>>>>> <packagename>,
>>>>>> -patches are applied as follows.
>>>>>> +For a specific version +<packageversion>+ of a specific package
>>>>>> ++<packagename>+, patches are applied from +BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR+ as
>>>>>> +follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -First, the default Buildroot patch set for the package is applied.
>>>>>> +. For every directory - +<global-patch-dir>+ - that exists in
>>>>>> +  +BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR+, a +<package-patch-dir>+ will be determined
>> as
>>>>>> +  follows:
>>>>>> ++
>>>>>> +* If the directory
>>>>>> +  +<global-patch-dir>/<packagename>/<packageversion>/+ exists.
>>>>>> ++
>>>>>> +* Otherwise, if the directory +<global-patch-dir>/<packagename>+
>> exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I find this wording strange:
>>>>> '.... will be determined as follows: if the directory A exists.
>>>>> Otherwise, if the directory B exists.'
>>>>>
>>>>> What about:
>>>>> '.... will be determined as follows: A, if it exists. Otherwise, B, if
>>>>> it exists.'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Actually for me, Ryan's formulation sounds more natural: if ... else
>> if
>>>>  ... else ....
>>
>>> The order of if/else are both fine for me, but I was more referring to
>>> something else. The intro sentence says: "The order will be determined
>>> as follows". When I read this, I expect to get a summary of items (the
>>> 'order'). However, what follows is a list of conditionals ("if A")
>>> without 'then' statement.
>>>
>>> It's a bit like this to me:
>>> "On lazy days, I do only two things: if I am hungry, and if I am
>> sleepy."
>>> while I expect more something like:
>>> "On lazy days, I do only two things: if I am hungry, I eat, and if I
>>
>> Is alright to keep the way it is? I prefer the way this looks when the
>> html manual is generated.
>
> I'm not sure we fully understand each other. My comment is not really
> about the looks of it, but rather about a missing part of the
> sentence. I don't really care about "if A then B" or "B, if A", it was
> just a suggestion. My main point is that there is no 'then' part on
> the if, making the whole sentence incomplete.
>
> Unless you can convince me that this is correct English, I think this
> should be fixed in this patch and not in a followup.

Nevermind, I just see your v5. I will re-read it tomorrow.

Thanks,
Thomas