Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #15280

Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Thomas,

On 31/10/23 at 13:08 +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not really sure what's going on, but I saw many packages marked as RC
> buggy with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20, however, both are still in
> Experimental, not in Unstable. I tried rebuilding those, and in built fine.
> I therefore closed the bugs.
> 
> I'm not sure if I was right doing so, and what's the intention behind
> bumping severity to serious. Is this for preparing before the upload of
> sphinx+docutils to unstable? If so, I would strongly suggest explaining this
> in bug entries, stating the intention is to upload sphinx and docutils very
> soon. Otherwise, like me, someone may wrongly close the bugs after a
> successful rebuild.

See this message:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1042585;msg=7
and this comment from Dmitry Shachnev:
# Dear Maintainers, I am going to upload Sphinx 7.2.6 to unstable next weekend.
# That will make these packages FTBFS in sid, which is a release-critical bug.
# The new docutils will be uploaded after Sphinx migrates to testing.

Lucas

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20 Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2023-10-31 13:30 +0100
  Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20 Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2023-10-31 14:00 +0100
  Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20 Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2023-10-31 15:50 +0100
    Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20 Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2023-10-31 23:10 +0100

csiph-web