On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:09:54AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 15 Nov 2022, at 00:58, Michael Paquier <michael@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
