Hi Helmut! [ Adding the bug back to Cc, I assume you did not intend to remove it. ]
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 03:25:08PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > I think we can slightly simplify it: > > | Build-depend on sphinx if your package uses /usr/bin/sphinx-* > | executables. Build-depend on python3-sphinx if your package uses the > | Python API (for instance by calling python3 -m sphinx). > > In some cases that may result in requiring both dependencies. That sounds fine, I added these words to the package description. https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/sphinx/-/commit/3c71964c17643ad0 > Now we need one further rule (which I think is already in place): Any > sphinx extension should depend on python3-sphinx. Any sphinx extension uses Sphinx Python API, so I think it is clear that it should build-depend (and depend) on python3-sphinx. > Together the case of sphinx extensions will work (i.e. packages will be > cross-unsatisfiable). > > If you depend on sphinx and on a sphinx-extension, both will depend on > python3-sphinx and that'll lock them to the same architecture. > (python3-sphinx cannot be M-A:foreign. Only sphinx will be M-A:foreign.) > > > Piuparts is run as part of salsa-pipeline (see the green checkmark) :) > > > > I have just uploaded sphinx 2.4.3-3 which gets rid of alternatives and adds > > Provides: sphinx (= ${binary:Version}). > > Cool. So what are our next steps? I will make a Sphinx 3.x upload with updated package description to experimental soon. Do you want to prepare mass bug filing, or you prefer that we deal with the packages in Python team (DPMT/PAPT) first? Unfortunately I won't have much time in the following weeks, so if you want some actions from me, I may be slow in replying. -- Dmitry Shachnev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
