1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.MAINT.PYTHON

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

    From Dmitry Shachnev@21:1/5 to Lucas Nussbaum on Tue Oct 31 14:00:01 2023
    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 [email protected]:

    # 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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEq2sdvrA0LydXHe1qsmYUtFL0RrYFAmVA+HMACgkQsmYUtFL0 RraNrxAAhJAbVyrBzQSINbTpbBTh6TO+dQfsUsmBG6pL3OGB37Iv+dWyrSgrR86w CWQdIzbeAZ1WFvRKyFZ/hLAJZSfGgecuqnWHPWdG2l3nSqM9ETDHtdfjgHl3K9iK vsnXuyn8kbUypdFCqO+V/NpJLCwL5QG5ZY8m0WO3dDhofpsmBYgxNZzTyYJcKVAO PGTAls/L3MUFRVYFc7sNquY2NtRfvDCGoZ0wS3VhyX75ABgNOS71pu0Z6Tovvfxm Yh1Y9GXK4IZazNV5hLNxedyKQhqiF/F0Q9Ghgs/Ry3NCrz41eomHxux451IC7WpJ cImfropKXE+SFEcdrAeGuJrypfX+0Mn/imodCzAfEiN/DGy3AjDgqP5kVn//ig34 i7mfo/e1tGAeJbuSh+DmwuZfdxmWlt8OR7T9ijs36pHndskygv1HXBr7ZG7LzFvU eTNgc8Zs7STpdDnf43kHeNx048+5Q6IjkLp6Qe0/9gW4/3eSSd+4AeyhmIXuQmpa Td5HNzoQqWy3c3Uf/ZTPeAGTqIsu1QwHdTA6n3ICssMKC20ziZ4CpK2N8S6UYKs4 I08uJXb5XR5c1Z49QxOmkAGmqXpCDOvIlL4JjS2bmBHc9Rzg2HzWHq+Jx/plshrS tV03lia6L4DVwWKjt+x49MVOyVesM/wJEVPNMeQxgsBG6JRM7/c=
    =O6Nx
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lucas Nussbaum@21:1/5 to Thomas Goirand on Tue Oct 31 13:30:01 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dmitry Shachnev@21:1/5 to Thomas Goirand on Tue Oct 31 15:50:01 2023
    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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEq2sdvrA0LydXHe1qsmYUtFL0RrYFAmVBEf8ACgkQsmYUtFL0 Rrb53xAAoruxyMbR2650yHFJwN76OdD3U7idDKjXvXmx4Qq76GEedisnQkEwTviK 8F9ek3F/4fJg9JQg0oVDk7cFK8ffNxHMiInebavKhOKLHy4JH4altcfI5xKsgMwW eGRgJ1JlUxtkuMrZhRxrg4Zra2N6tjp2lfPgvyus43+EZlH8eBMEklBl9Aaxl8R3 8oaCdy8BQQcYZd17PYrLVmERhisPd0R5hk89z1JPQ7M+4QXyfiLpH9gEpwpVJZS5 NUawDOe+KHZW+Wu3GSd4n56R2YiEnM1ejg9Vk4Cw4PLNyVpsPhBrB7huTgprfQSq B+DzmZLEHrpfxCC0OGEcciKl22S5RiycDVtafvCZgsVl6xTkZgDqKvaZd/7yiG7W CdATTqa+t4pYOqlrlsoW2cKGsWc+Z5PiaGEMu1lFfWqzG83E+P6FYPqnPTrApaZZ 99o3DNkES7yx+MhoZm2txrkHKSn/4EFs1RRdC5tCCKh0OA+7O4d49IiyjRK2+m38 DrENJnl1B43jtGaljYxRyQq2/cAHOuuEAJYRmjLEZX5Kgwtu4IuCO3RT/xtmXR8t IMtWf74nXwVqPP2cfHoh7g/hMcUIPADi4D5R6+sf9bUKLKKB7sfntwWn7JAz/wUM /xVWMsHlCCI9842jZkq7yBWo44FLu12oUjJbz2uuTFIQrDL04xo=
    =I68A
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dmitry Shachnev@21:1/5 to Thomas Goirand on Tue Oct 31 23:10:01 2023
    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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEq2sdvrA0LydXHe1qsmYUtFL0RrYFAmVBeWwACgkQsmYUtFL0 RraRVw//fejCvywhI7VDnv0jmFTs+ScoWozxzOUI7N1x97rOragFhHDiMtYIva2u ZPIk9yU8W3dt5GFwUgNQBQDZwS4FBG5aWBdwHz8YqXJGBeFwFGi347phND+fFYEz 5G2DLu2TtTe8m0j+i4DjUmi2dUdHoHK9lyxMAriBRw9mcOT13FChsIc1XP71zmTG V0d2az33v5CmXjY+9lfs/es85plFeXRqXbyg0NCzB3XIKfT0bd0LLtwBc4xIzO8M O9fp9lsI1PNIMJv7TtyDti/BwLc0Ue/P91O7LQ3iUacZMN8RIJgN81vDZn6KrUL0 Y2XT0kED3XRFpS51XLyDLhqa8ccmTAHaWqhgTDNs9mWZnm2tgUoCLylsvnXNm96R pJ9qxbxonPY0BOOh1Tx0ar2T6g1edTl0i/7DVh1uqUmnSs7RM3BUUpgbly1n6bY9 XCwe+PV9QiKzcSduKQBS+6KdzWZ0pr4Q3w/VujnuO8A8Qm4bIHbz9QI5CiKghDZZ BhZEyqD5twPVrwcWmVnILy29QeekqWFWmAUViN1ioflmqwDVFMSiHMPZhe1J6Max 1OEgOlDvwfCLM4SMIbwhFDp6ql7fSFjllmFZ5YSRTQQlPRvAI4UD3Hra58+4sOKV BerJ+u9/BII6lzipy8oWXBYsAFowZq1Cbn5o8SolqoXDoIP6Sw4=
    =gDF0
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)