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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #7770 > unrolled thread

Re: pybuild sphinxdoc and extensions

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: pybuild sphinxdoc and extensions Christoph Groth <christoph@grothesque.org> - 2015-10-23 10:10 +0200
    Sorry for posting the same message twice Christoph Groth <christoph@grothesque.org> - 2015-10-23 10:30 +0200
      Re: Sorry for posting the same message twice Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2015-10-23 10:50 +0200
        OT: To CC or not to CC? (was: Sorry for posting the same message twice) Christoph Groth <christoph@grothesque.org> - 2015-12-05 00:00 +0100
          Re: OT: To CC or not to CC? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-12-05 00:10 +0100
          Re: OT: To CC or not to CC? (was: Sorry for posting the same message twice) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2015-12-05 00:20 +0100
            Re: OT: To CC or not to CC? Christoph Groth <christoph@grothesque.org> - 2015-12-05 10:10 +0100

#7770 — Re: pybuild sphinxdoc and extensions

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

I found this thread while trying to update the Debian packaging 
for a Python library that I maintain.  The library has Sphinx 
documentation that is quite complex to build:  First, the library 
needs to be built (it contains C extensions), then figures are 
generated by scripts, and finally Sphinx is run.  This is all done 
in a Makefile.

Piotr Ożarowski wrote:

> [PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel, 2014-04-06]
> > so I would like to know how to change this snipset to use the
> > {build_dir} for the PYTHONPATH.
>
> you cannot really use pybuild for this, it will invoke your 
> command
> after or before each interpreter/version call. If you hardcode 
> pybuild's
> internal paths on the other hand (.pybuild/something in case of
> distutils build plugin), it will break once the internal path 
> changes...
>
> I suggest to move building docs to install target and add
> debian/foo/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages) to PYTHONPATH. I also 
> build
> directly into debian/foo/usr/share/doc/foo/html so I feel a 
> little less
> guilty for doing it in install step ;)

With “install target”, do you mean dh_installdocs?  In our 
debian/rules, we have now

# Make documentation only if needed.
ifneq "$(shell dh_listpackages | grep -- -doc)" ""
override_dh_installdocs:
	cd doc && PYTHONPATH=$(abspath 
	debian/python-kwant/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages) 
	$(MAKE) html
	dh_installdocs
endif

This seems to work, but is this what you meant?  Also, I have two 
questions:

• How to get rid of the explicit mention of python2.7?

• Is the “ifneq”-clause the proper way to ensure that 
  documentation is only built for binary-indep?

I have one further more general question with regard to Debian 
packaging with pybuild.  Pybuild deletes the *.egg-info directory 
but that directory is included in the tarball as made by “setup.py 
sdist”.  (I am aware that some people consider that directory to 
be generated data, but this is debatable [1], and it’s standard 
practice to include it in the tarball anyway.)  This has the 
consequence that after running “gbp buildpackage”, some files are 
missing and thus “gbp buildpackage” cannot be re-run without “git 
checkout .”.  This situation is unsatisfactory.  Is there a 
recommended solution?

The complete Debian packaging of our library is available in a git 
repository [2].  I hope that one day (rather soon) it could be 
added to Debian proper.

Thanks for any hints,
Christoph

[1] https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/2092#comment:16
[2] http://git.kwant-project.org/debian-kwant/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#7771 — Sorry for posting the same message twice

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

Hello again,

Sorry for posting the same message twice.  I believed that it got
silently dropped as I did not see it show up on gmane (this was because
I replied to an old thread).  So I subscribed to
whitelist@lists.debian.org and resent it.

Christoph

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

#7773 — Re: Sorry for posting the same message twice

[Christoph Groth, 2015-10-23]
> Sorry for posting the same message twice.  I believed that it got
> silently dropped as I did not see it show up on gmane (this was because
> I replied to an old thread).  So I subscribed to
> whitelist@lists.debian.org and resent it.

your message went through, I simply decide to ignore you for a while
because you CCed me on a mailing list that I subscribe :P
-- 
evil general Piotr

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

#7941 — OT: To CC or not to CC? (was: Sorry for posting the same message twice)

Piotr Ożarowski wrote:

> your message went through, I simply decide to ignore you for a while
> because you CCed me on a mailing list that I subscribe :P

But how can I know that you, or someone else, is subscribed?  In this
particular case it's of course quite obvious, but I believe that instead
of asking oneself this question each time when replying to some message
on some mailing list, CCing the author by default is the only reasonable
policy.  People who are annoyed by receiving the same message twice can
quite easily configure any good MUA to hide messages that also go to
lists that they read anyway.

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

#7942 — Re: OT: To CC or not to CC?

Christoph Groth <christoph@grothesque.org> writes:

> Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
> > your message went through, I simply decide to ignore you for a while
> > because you CCed me on a mailing list that I subscribe :P
>
> But how can I know that you, or someone else, is subscribed?

When a message is sent to a forum (e.g. a mailing list), there's no need
to know whether the person who sent it is subscribed. That's their
business, and if they want to receive replies they should either
subscribe to the forum or arrange some other way to receive replies from
that forum.

> I believe that instead of asking oneself this question each time when
> replying to some message on some mailing list, CCing the author by
> default is the only reasonable policy.

I disagree, it is more reasonable to think that someone sending a
message to a forum can arrange by themselves to receive message from
that forum — and if they do not say otherwise, they do not want public
replies duplicated to them privately.

> People who are annoyed by receiving the same message twice can quite
> easily configure any good MUA to hide messages that also go to lists
> that they read anyway.

Some of us have not informed our MUA about the forum at all because we
don't subscribe to the forum via email. If we haven't asked explicitly
for public replies to be duplicated to our individual email address, it
would be rude to unilaterally send messages there without good reason.

-- 
 \      “Science embraces facts and debates opinion; religion embraces |
  `\    opinion and debates the facts.” —Tom Heehler, _The Well-Spoken |
_o__)                                                       Thesaurus_ |
Ben Finney

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

#7943 — Re: OT: To CC or not to CC? (was: Sorry for posting the same message twice)

On December 4, 2015 5:54:50 PM EST, Christoph Groth <christoph@grothesque.org> wrote:
>Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
>> your message went through, I simply decide to ignore you for a while
>> because you CCed me on a mailing list that I subscribe :P
>
>But how can I know that you, or someone else, is subscribed?  In this
>particular case it's of course quite obvious, but I believe that
>instead
>of asking oneself this question each time when replying to some message
>on some mailing list, CCing the author by default is the only
>reasonable
>policy.  People who are annoyed by receiving the same message twice can
>quite easily configure any good MUA to hide messages that also go to
>lists that they read anyway.

Debian has a policy for this:

https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/

Scott K

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

#7945 — Re: OT: To CC or not to CC?

Scott Kitterman wrote:

> Debian has a policy for this:

Thanks, I didn't know.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web