Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20
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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20
On 10/31/23 15:41, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
dh_sphinxdoc looks for either the new way of loading searchindex.js:
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.
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... :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20
On 10/31/23 13:52, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: On one of the closed bugs, I replied to you (#1043075). FYI, before reading it, I finished my work on version 3.2.0 of openstackdocstheme, that I uploaded today. So everything should be fine, hopefully. What other bugs did you close? Will you mind if I reopen them, or you will do that yourself? The others are all OpenStack packages, which I fixed with the above upload. The other one was python-amqp, but I re-opened the bug. Also, they built successfully in sid, i.e. with old Sphinx, right? Right. Though as per above, it should be fine now. The only thing is that the packages will produce a different doc package if rebuilt (ie: new theme), but there's going to be another OpenStack release in 5 months, so it should be fine. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20
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:
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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20
On 10/31/23 13:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: 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 Hi Lucas, First of all, thanks for your care doing this BTS dance. I'm just trying to improve things, but this is not at all a strong critic, I appreciate the work being done. However, I missed it, because it didn't appear in the bug report itself. I certainly will not be the only one not seeing it, which is why I wrote this message. If it isn't too much work, I would suggest adding a few words in each BTS entry. 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. So please don't re-open bugs, I'll take care of that next week, and just fixing the docs theme should fix it. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20
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 cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # 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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages wrongly marked as FTBFS with Sphinx 7.1, docutils 0.20
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
