Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Mattia Rizzolo Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: sphinx-build vs. Python 3 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:30:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Aug 21 20:26:28 2018 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: DYN_NJABL=ERR(0) NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 BL_NJABL=ERR(-1.5) CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .debian. - helo: .savidlin.mapreri. - helo-domain: .mapreri.) FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=0; rate: -5 Mail-Followup-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Info: Keep It Simple, Stupid. X-Operating-System: Linux, kernel 4.17.0-1-amd64, inside Debian GNU/Linux unstable (sid) sid. X-Message-Flag: WARNING!! Outlook sucks. A lot. User-Agent: Every email client sucks, this one just sucks less. X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/16250 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20180821202537.GA30374@mapreri.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 55 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:25:47 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <20180821202537.GA30374@mapreri.org> X-Original-References: <20180821130320.GA19039@mitya57.me> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:10830 --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:03:20PM +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > If you depend on python3-sphinx (>=3D 1.7.5-4~) then most likely the scri= pts > will be using Python 3. The opposite will happen only if the user manually > updated the alternative, and this won=E2=80=99t be the case on a sane bui= ld > environment. I'm not so sure about this. I don't remember Policy specifying whether a build process can make assumptions on the configuration of possible alternatives, and at any rate I wouldn't bet my build process on that: after all you talk about "sane build environment", but I don't remember any kind of consensus that said building on your dirty daily system is not supported. I'm personally biased as a member of the Reproducible Builds team that believe any possible variable in the environment must not affect the build result, this sounds like yet another one to me. --=20 regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=3Dmattia `- --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAlt8dT8ACgkQCBa54Yx2 K61ZhRAAmQQu8v7fbRSwN8gFO4CgK1+pfdszXISbtNxZvPhWkx5bGClFgKaI+kYQ 7UAIpGSMY9wIRjLW4WhA4kX/KXUBlM7N3PBvVXsv6Xgi5WRtf2m5KRYoVGrPFPr8 N3vHrJkVBGRUEqobRd8sqMb59vwFgbBAIQ4k3B6OEvT+bunMvcTrRUN6XmqMT0+S rj/MJeMFfcWg8FwyfsxDXgIVAU258lV4wbo3/Sgj6adKmJBla8LjAANnhsc1CvB/ UvhkbuQkAXT8NFdWBQiobjndCdB2R0liI55t824iHJfIA5nP4QJEvAU0CgmPjnvW ZjUOx5cV6NqcFZEXP1Hyny3AaDc6RSTc1eBlIUHYFXkuk95Uy2Q0/UowWzemasoZ /FkMK4PYXLmOMHRqkuJLCEiLNGKIP2N2ZZtpfMFb2iwa1N7Y0t+50/RrllgjrcUh Dazqu1pYmUAdCH8R0TR9U0+HbvwqxzQAg6SttcrlEtFqwu/CPZr4ao8l38H71vx1 2F9LpnOsgXfnOKONTRPci0cXfxl+n3zQ4vlAL/Cr8I+WEl7mx/b3MZJniQE51nCc w1kVJgGfAdEM0Uz7wpoJ7Rt4ASSSCDSTFPvW+8GgJIeknwbE41zmoHYGbf8osLKg BeccIJ7KpPpSa/OPLVIYGNkM6pk72Acse6OIjYcxMkJPxd8toCg= =RNP+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1--