On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:09:54AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 15 Nov 2022, at 00:58, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 03:27:14PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> Ugh, yes, that's what it should say. >> >> A split sounds fine by me. On top of what Tom has mentioned, I have >> spotted two small-ish things. >> >> - This module is available from CPAN or an operating system package. >> + This module is available from >> + <ulink url="https://metacpan.org/release/IPC-Run";>CPAN</ulink> >> + or an operating system package. >> >> It looks like there is a second one in install-windows.sgml. > > Not sure I follow. IPC::Run is already linked to with a ulink from that page > (albeit with an empty tag rendering the URL instead).
Ah, I did not notice that there was already a link to that with IPC::Run. Anyway, shouldn't CPAN be marked at least as an <acronym> if we are not going to use a link on it? acronyms.sgml lists it, just saying. > A related nitpick I found though is that metacpan has changed their URL > structure and these links now 301 redirect. The attached 0001 fixes that > first > before applying the other part. WFM. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
