Fix format of explanation of an example & question

This list was not formatted correctly on [the ReadTheDocs site](http://software.llnl.gov/spack/basic_usage.html#specs-dependencies).

I'm not a .rst expert, but I think that it was improperly indented.

The example includes an `arch=...` string but *arch* is not listed in the valid compiler flag specifiers or architecture specifiers.  Should it be, or is it considered an "optional variant specifier?
This commit is contained in:
George Hartzell 2016-07-14 08:31:07 -07:00 committed by GitHub
parent d24c11f2b1
commit 3051c3d71d

View file

@ -543,11 +543,12 @@ More formally, a spec consists of the following pieces:
* ``+`` or ``-`` or ``~`` Optional variant specifiers (``+debug``,
``-qt``, or ``~qt``) for boolean variants
* ``name=<value>`` Optional variant specifiers that are not restricted to
boolean variants
boolean variants
* ``name=<value>`` Optional compiler flag specifiers. Valid flag names are
``cflags``, ``cxxflags``, ``fflags``, ``cppflags``, ``ldflags``, and ``ldlibs``.
``cflags``, ``cxxflags``, ``fflags``, ``cppflags``, ``ldflags``, and ``ldlibs``.
* ``target=<value> os=<value>`` Optional architecture specifier
(``target=haswell os=CNL10``) * ``^`` Dependency specs (``^callpath@1.1``)
(``target=haswell os=CNL10``)
* ``^`` Dependency specs (``^callpath@1.1``)
There are two things to notice here. The first is that specs are
recursively defined. That is, each dependency after ``^`` is a spec