[2/2] gdb/doc: uniformize wording for GMP and MPFR entries

  Make the wording of the GMP and MPFR entries in the "Requirements for
Building GDB" section of the documentation more uniform by:

- mentioning the configure script in the GMP entry, as is done in the
  MPFR entry
- adding the long name of the MPFR library between parenthesis, as is
  done in the GMP entry
- removing the second paragraph of the MPFR entry and moving its content
  to the first one, mimicking the wording of the GMP entry
---
 gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 13 ++++++-------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
  

> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:46:57 -0500
> Cc: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>
> From: Philippe Blain via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> Make the wording of the GMP and MPFR entries in the "Requirements for
> Building GDB" section of the documentation more uniform by:
> 
> - mentioning the configure script in the GMP entry, as is done in the
>   MPFR entry
> - adding the long name of the MPFR library between parenthesis, as is
>   done in the GMP entry
> - removing the second paragraph of the MPFR entry and moving its content
>   to the first one, mimicking the wording of the GMP entry
> ---
>  gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

I don't mind the changes, but I also don't mind leaving the original
text intact: there's nothing wrong with it per se.

Thanks.

Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
  

Hi Eli,

Le 2023-03-10 à 14:17, Eli Zaretskii a écrit :
>> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:46:57 -0500
>> Cc: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>
>> From: Philippe Blain via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>
>> Make the wording of the GMP and MPFR entries in the "Requirements for
>> Building GDB" section of the documentation more uniform by:
>>
>> - mentioning the configure script in the GMP entry, as is done in the
>>   MPFR entry
>> - adding the long name of the MPFR library between parenthesis, as is
>>   done in the GMP entry
>> - removing the second paragraph of the MPFR entry and moving its content
>>   to the first one, mimicking the wording of the GMP entry
>> ---
>>  gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 13 ++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> I don't mind the changes, but I also don't mind leaving the original
> text intact: there's nothing wrong with it per se.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> 

Thanks for the reviwew. I do not have push access, would you be so
kind as to push both patches ? 

Thanks,

Philippe.
  

> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, apinski@marvell.com
> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:45:04 -0400
> 
> Hi Eli,
> 
> Le 2023-03-10 à 14:17, Eli Zaretskii a écrit :
> >> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:46:57 -0500
> >> Cc: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>
> >> From: Philippe Blain via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> >>
> >> Make the wording of the GMP and MPFR entries in the "Requirements for
> >> Building GDB" section of the documentation more uniform by:
> >>
> >> - mentioning the configure script in the GMP entry, as is done in the
> >>   MPFR entry
> >> - adding the long name of the MPFR library between parenthesis, as is
> >>   done in the GMP entry
> >> - removing the second paragraph of the MPFR entry and moving its content
> >>   to the first one, mimicking the wording of the GMP entry
> >> ---
> >>  gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 13 ++++++-------
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > I don't mind the changes, but I also don't mind leaving the original
> > text intact: there's nothing wrong with it per se.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the reviwew. I do not have push access, would you be so
> kind as to push both patches ? 

My preference is to install only the first of these, for the reasons I
explained, but I'm waiting to hear opinions of others, if they differ.
  

Hi Eli,

Le 2023-03-14 à 08:08, Eli Zaretskii a écrit :
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, apinski@marvell.com
>> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:45:04 -0400
>>
>> Hi Eli,
>>
>> Le 2023-03-10 à 14:17, Eli Zaretskii a écrit :
>>>> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:46:57 -0500
>>>> Cc: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>
>>>> From: Philippe Blain via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>>>
>>>> Make the wording of the GMP and MPFR entries in the "Requirements for
>>>> Building GDB" section of the documentation more uniform by:
>>>>
>>>> - mentioning the configure script in the GMP entry, as is done in the
>>>>   MPFR entry
>>>> - adding the long name of the MPFR library between parenthesis, as is
>>>>   done in the GMP entry
>>>> - removing the second paragraph of the MPFR entry and moving its content
>>>>   to the first one, mimicking the wording of the GMP entry
>>>> ---
>>>>  gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 13 ++++++-------
>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> I don't mind the changes, but I also don't mind leaving the original
>>> text intact: there's nothing wrong with it per se.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the reviwew. I do not have push access, would you be so
>> kind as to push both patches ? 
> 
> My preference is to install only the first of these, for the reasons I
> explained, but I'm waiting to hear opinions of others, if they differ.

OK, thanks. let's wait a bit to see if someone else wants to chime in.

I guess I was confused by the fact that 'Approved-by' is used here in a different way
than in the Git project, where it is an explicit approval (and Approved-by is not used).

Maybe an argument for the second patch is that since the first patch makes the GMP and
MPFR neighboring entries, it makes more sense to uniformize the wording between the two
entries. At least, this is why I made this change: it looked a bit off when I read the doc
after only the first patch.

Thanks,

Philippe.
  

Le 2023-03-14 à 13:12, Philippe Blain a écrit :
> Hi Eli,
> 
[...]
> 
> I guess I was confused by the fact that 'Approved-by' is used here in a different way
> than in the Git project, where it is an explicit approval 

I meant 'Reviewed-by' here, sorry.
  

> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, apinski@marvell.com
> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:12:19 -0400
> 
> >>> Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reviwew. I do not have push access, would you be so
> >> kind as to push both patches ? 
> > 
> > My preference is to install only the first of these, for the reasons I
> > explained, but I'm waiting to hear opinions of others, if they differ.
> 
> OK, thanks. let's wait a bit to see if someone else wants to chime in.
> 
> I guess I was confused by the fact that 'Approved-by' is used here in a different way
> than in the Git project, where it is an explicit approval (and Approved-by is not used).

I didn't give Approved-by, I gave Reviewed-By.
  

> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, apinski@marvell.com
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:38:08 -0400
> 
> Le 2023-03-14 à 13:12, Philippe Blain a écrit :
> > Hi Eli,
> > 
> [...]
> > 
> > I guess I was confused by the fact that 'Approved-by' is used here in a different way
> > than in the Git project, where it is an explicit approval 
> 
> I meant 'Reviewed-by' here, sorry.

Do they really use Reviewed-by as an approval?  _That_ would be
confusing, since the word "review" means just that, it doesn't mean
any approval.
  

Hi Eli,

Le 2023-03-14 à 15:41, Eli Zaretskii a écrit :
>> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, apinski@marvell.com
>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:38:08 -0400
>>
>> Le 2023-03-14 à 13:12, Philippe Blain a écrit :
>>> Hi Eli,
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I guess I was confused by the fact that 'Approved-by' is used here in a different way
>>> than in the Git project, where it is an explicit approval 
>>
>> I meant 'Reviewed-by' here, sorry.
> 
> Do they really use Reviewed-by as an approval?  _That_ would be
> confusing, since the word "review" means just that, it doesn't mean
> any approval.
> 

Yes, in the Git project, Reviewd-by is approval, see for example 
item 3. at https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#sign-off 
(under "If you like, you can put extra tags at the end"):


	Reviewed-by:, unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the 
	reviewers themselves when they are completely satisfied with the 
	patch after a detailed analysis.

This is in line with what it means for Linux also, as far as I understand [1].

Thanks,

Philippe.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes
  

> My preference is to install only the first of these, for the reasons I
> explained, but I'm waiting to hear opinions of others, if they differ.
Since you are waiting for some opinion, I'll give mine.  I like the more
uniform text after patch 2.  I like having the description of why GDB
uses the library at the start (even if it's just informative, it doesn't
help the user accomplish anything in the end).  I think that the change
that mentions the "configure" script is nice, otherwise it can be
unclear where to use those --with-gmp/--with-gmp-include/--with-gmp-lib
options.

Simon