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

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

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#15280 — Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15281

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Thomas!

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 01:27:22PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I wanted to warn in advance about the upcoming uploads and about the fact
that this upload will make the non-fixed packages RC-buggy.

The email sent by BTS should have included my comment. This is what I got:

----------8<----------
Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:

> # 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.
> severity 1042585 serious
Bug #1042585 [src:python-i3ipc] python-i3ipc: FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20...
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
[...]
---------->8----------

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 01:08:34PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 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.

On one of the closed bugs, I replied to you (#1043075).

What other bugs did you close? Will you mind if I reopen them, or you will do
that yourself?

Also, they built successfully in sid, i.e. with old Sphinx, right?

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15282

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 02:57:37PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> BTW, I closed the OpenStack related bugs, but I believe upgrading
> python3-openstackdocs will fix it. The new theme builds, but when using it,
> I get:
>
> dh_sphinxdoc -O--buildsystem=python_distutils
> dh_sphinxdoc: error: debian/python-openstacksdk-doc/usr/share/doc/python-openstacksdk-doc/html/search.html
> does not load searchindex.js
>
> I'm not sure how to fix it, but I'll find out.

dh_sphinxdoc looks for either the new way of loading searchindex.js:

    <script src="searchindex.js" defer></script>

or the old way:

    jQuery(function() { Search.loadIndex("searchindex.js"); });

Looking at openstackdocstheme's search.html, it does have one of these
lines (the second one):

https://opendev.org/openstack/openstackdocstheme/src/tag/3.2.0/openstackdocstheme/theme/openstackdocs/search.html#L38

If it's there but dh_sphinxdoc still shows this error, then it's probably a
dh_sphinxdoc bug. Otherwise, please figure out why that line is not there.

> So please don't re-open bugs, I'll take care of that next week, and just
> fixing the docs theme should fix it.

OK.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15283

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:47:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Thanks for the hint. I found it out myself: I mistakenly removed these lines
> trying to remove the search thingy and all the external references (ie: JS
> files hosted in some CDNs and the like).
>
> I mentioned all that because I thought I wouldn't have time to figure out
> before next week (as I'm taking days off starting tomorrow morning), but it
> looks like everything is fine now... :)

Thank you!

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web