On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:36:09AM -0800, Ondrej Certik wrote: > Hi Piotr, Kumar and Matthias, > > thanks for all the replies, I'll reply one by one: > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Piotr Ożarowski <pi...@debian.org> wrote: > > [Ondrej Certik, 2009-01-25] > >> There is a problem with documentation, that it depends on sphinx-0.5, > >> which is currently only in experimental. And also upstream doesn't > >> have it in the tarball. I originally fixed that by > >> adding a new target into debian/rules, that downloaded the upstream > >> tgz, unpacked, eported the doc/ directory from upstream svn and then > >> packaged it again. But since it still doesn't build in pure sid, I > >> rather fixed the build with the current upstream tarball. > > > > python-numpy has many reverse dependencies - how about uploading it > > to experimental for now? This way you'll have Sphinx 0.5.x available. > > I really want it in unstable. It's because the new scipy won't build > without this upload etc. and many people are just waiting for it. It's > a legitimate question though, but so far I understood that this is > what unstable is for. Otherwise people will have to move from unstable > to experimental to get the latest packages. Is this what we want? I > prefer it in unstable, but I am open to other opinions. To me the question is: Why is sphinx 0.5 in experimental not unstable? This issue does not only affect numpy, as sphinx 0.4.3 has some problems which prevent successful building of docs (e.g. image/figure handling bug) -- and at least this one is solved in 0.5.
Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org