Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
On 10/04/2017 04:41 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>
>
> On 03/10/17 22:46, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 09/29/2017 01:08 PM, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
>>> Hello guyes.
>>>
override_dh_sphinxdoc:
ifeq (,$(findstring nodocs, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
>>>
>>> nodocs or nodoc
>>>
>>> I alsa do something like this when there is extensions.
>>>
>>> override_dh_sphinxdoc:
>>> ifeq (,$(findstring nodoc, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
>>> PYBUILD_SYSTEM=custom \
>>> PYBUILD_BUILD_ARGS="cd docs && PYTHONPATH={build_dir}
>>> http_proxy='127.0.0.1:9' {interpreter} -m sphinx -N -bhtml source
>>> build/html" dh_auto_build # HTML generator
>>> dh_installdocs "docs/build/html" -p python-gpyfft-doc
>>> dh_sphinxdoc -O--buildsystem=pybuild
>>> endif
>>
>> In fact, I was thinking that probably, it'd be nicer to even do:
>>
>> ifeq (,$(findstring nodoc, $(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)))
>>
>> and have Build-Profiles: for the python-foo-doc package. This
>> could even become a standard in the DPMT if everyone agrees.
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>
> s/DEB_BUILD_PROFILES/DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
>
> Quoting the relevant part of the documentation for the nodoc build
> profile [1]:
>
> "Builds that set this profile must also add nodoc to DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS"
>
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
>
> Cheers,
> Ghis
Yeah, I saw it, though I was wondering if it was a good idea or not to
attempt to change this. I don't really see the point of having to set
both options, when only a single one should be enough. Also, if you only
set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nodoc, then you end up with an empty -doc package,
which isn't very useful. So, I don't really see the use case of having 2
options here.
Your thoughts?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
On 03/10/17 22:46, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 09/29/2017 01:08 PM, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
Hello guyes.
override_dh_sphinxdoc:
ifeq (,$(findstring nodocs, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
nodocs or nodoc
I alsa do something like this when there is extensions.
override_dh_sphinxdoc:
ifeq (,$(findstring nodoc, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
PYBUILD_SYSTEM=custom \
PYBUILD_BUILD_ARGS="cd docs && PYTHONPATH={build_dir}
http_proxy='127.0.0.1:9' {interpreter} -m sphinx -N -bhtml source build/html" dh_auto_build
# HTML generator
dh_installdocs "docs/build/html" -p python-gpyfft-doc
dh_sphinxdoc -O--buildsystem=pybuild
endif
In fact, I was thinking that probably, it'd be nicer to even do:
ifeq (,$(findstring nodoc, $(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)))
and have Build-Profiles: for the python-foo-doc package. This
could even become a standard in the DPMT if everyone agrees.
Thoughts anyone?
s/DEB_BUILD_PROFILES/DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
Quoting the relevant part of the documentation for the nodoc build
profile [1]:
"Builds that set this profile must also add nodoc to DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS"
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
Cheers,
Ghis
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
On 09/29/2017 01:08 PM, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> Hello guyes.
>
>> override_dh_sphinxdoc:
>> ifeq (,$(findstring nodocs, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
>
> nodocs or nodoc
>
> I alsa do something like this when there is extensions.
>
> override_dh_sphinxdoc:
> ifeq (,$(findstring nodoc, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
> PYBUILD_SYSTEM=custom \
> PYBUILD_BUILD_ARGS="cd docs && PYTHONPATH={build_dir}
> http_proxy='127.0.0.1:9' {interpreter} -m sphinx -N -bhtml source build/html"
> dh_auto_build # HTML generator
> dh_installdocs "docs/build/html" -p python-gpyfft-doc
> dh_sphinxdoc -O--buildsystem=pybuild
> endif
In fact, I was thinking that probably, it'd be nicer to even do:
ifeq (,$(findstring nodoc, $(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)))
and have Build-Profiles: for the python-foo-doc package. This
could even become a standard in the DPMT if everyone agrees.
Thoughts anyone?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
Hi Antoine,
Thanks for your post.
On 09/27/2017 12:29 AM, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> 6. there are currently packages depending on *both* python-sphinx and
> python3-sphinx. for me, that makes no sense at all: there is a
> single set of documentation files built in a package, and it must be
> on either one of those packages, but not both. if the software
> supports building with python3, then it should depend on
> python3-sphinx, if not, it should depend on python-sphinx. by
> switching to sphinx{,3} binary packages, this would make that
> distinction clearer as well.
It does make sense if the package is a sphinx extension, and it has
tests that you may want to run in both Python 2 and 3 cases. I do have a
few of these cases (even though I'm planning on switching to Python3
support only in the short term).
On 09/28/2017 02:27 PM, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> A simple --with=sphinxdoc should be sufficient to build sphinx docs.
> We shouldn't expect upstream to do that step in setup.py, as it is
> rarely hooked into the main build.
I don't agree with this. I generally prefer to write things this way:
override_dh_sphinxdoc:
ifeq (,$(findstring nodocs, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
sphinx-build -b html doc/source \
$(CURDIR)/debian/python-foo-doc/usr/share/doc/python-foo-doc/html
dh_sphinxdoc
endif
(sorry for the indentation above, lines are too short in emails)
This way, there's no need to pickup/copy the docs in doc/build, it ends
up directly in the package, ready for dh_sphinxdoc. If I need to add
some variables (for example to fix reproducibility), I can easily do it.
I will be switching to the "python3 -m sphinx" style soon, though that's
unrelated.
Over the years, I found using this method a way better than using
"python{3,} setup.py build_sphinx". I'd suggest you try my way too.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
On 2017-09-28 19:59:12, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:27:20AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> > And moving Python 3 packages to /usr/bin/sphinx3-build or something like >> > that will mean diverging from upstream (see below). >> >> Note that we already diverge from upstream in numerous places in Python, >> first and foremost in the naming of the Python binary itself. > > How do we diverge there? In my opinion we follow PEP 394 quite closely: > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/ Ah. Oops. :) I guess I was thinking of virtualenvs... >> > Good suggestion, I have submitted a pull request upstream: >> > https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/4092 >> >> Excellent - I meant to do that but ran out of time writing the email in >> the first place. :) >> >> I see, however, it's not getting too much traction.. But they have a >> fair point - I didn't realize there was a difference between variables >> from the environment and from the commandline in Make. Maybe it's good >> enough as it is then. > > It is not ‘they’, it is our Simon :) He also replied on this mailing list, > just did not CC you. Oops again. :) I replied there as well. [...] >> This is why I mention pybuild: maybe *that* is where docs should be >> built? I am not sure. In any case, I feel there's a shim missing here, >> and there's a good occasion to leverage the automation we have to >> generate proper build deps and build-time commands. > > Maybe pybuild can do this, but it then needs to make some assumptions > about the doc source path, build path, wished formats, etc. For finding source > path it can probably use something like this: > > https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/stable/sphinx/setup_command.py#L111 > > But it is up to pybuild maintainer (Piotr) to decide whether he wants this > feature or not. Well, it would sure be nice to have some place for this, of course. [...] >> > Also there is no such thing as sphinx3-build upstream (unlike other >> > packages >> > that follow this convention). So all upstream projects will try to use >> > sphinx-build, not sphinx3-build, even if they are Python 3 only. And if you >> > override this command anyway, you can use two existing ways, I don’t see a >> > need for the third one. >> >> The reasoning here is that is is more discoverable, namely through >> commandline completion, and is consistent with the /usr/bin/python* >> binary naming conventions. > > I have just figured out that there *is* bash completion for python3 -m > syntax. What i meant is that "sphinx" doesn't show there is a python2 vs python3 version. [...] > Now it is explicit: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/sphinx.git/commit/?id=5b2efffcaae8c915 Excellent, thanks again. A. -- Pour marcher au pas d'une musique militaire, il n'y a pas besoin de cerveau, une moelle épinière suffit. - Albert Einstein
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:27:20AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > > And moving Python 3 packages to /usr/bin/sphinx3-build or something like > > that will mean diverging from upstream (see below). > > Note that we already diverge from upstream in numerous places in Python, > first and foremost in the naming of the Python binary itself. How do we diverge there? In my opinion we follow PEP 394 quite closely: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/ > > Good suggestion, I have submitted a pull request upstream: > > https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/4092 > > Excellent - I meant to do that but ran out of time writing the email in > the first place. :) > > I see, however, it's not getting too much traction.. But they have a > fair point - I didn't realize there was a difference between variables > from the environment and from the commandline in Make. Maybe it's good > enough as it is then. It is not ‘they’, it is our Simon :) He also replied on this mailing list, just did not CC you. > > And there is no such thing as --with=sphinx. There is --with=sphinxdoc, > > but it operates on already built and installed documentation, so it cannot > > help with building. > > I guess this is what I mean should be automated better. Every time I > used --with=sphinxdoc, I expected it to build the docs and then > remembered, when the produced package lacked any docs whatsoever, that I > needed to build things myself. > > A simple --with=sphinxdoc should be sufficient to build sphinx docs. We > shouldn't expect upstream to do that step in setup.py, as it is rarely > hooked into the main build. Yes, there's the `build_sphinx` command, but > it's not hooked into `setup.py build` except in some rare project. Sphinxdoc is a helper to run after install, not a build system. So it is not a place for such code. > This is why I mention pybuild: maybe *that* is where docs should be > built? I am not sure. In any case, I feel there's a shim missing here, > and there's a good occasion to leverage the automation we have to > generate proper build deps and build-time commands. Maybe pybuild can do this, but it then needs to make some assumptions about the doc source path, build path, wished formats, etc. For finding source path it can probably use something like this: https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/stable/sphinx/setup_command.py#L111 But it is up to pybuild maintainer (Piotr) to decide whether he wants this feature or not. > > What is the problem with using > > /usr/share/sphinx/scripts/python3/sphinx-build > > explicitly if you want to force Python 3? > > It's hard to find. It's unusal for a user-facing command to be absent > from the path yet to expect users to find it, especially when one > version *is* available in the path. As I said ealier, for most cases just using sphinx-build which is on PATH should be fine. In advanced cases, it should not be hard to run ‘dpkg -L python3-sphinx’ to figure out where its scripts are, or use the -m syntax. > Sure. I just found out about this while writing the email, after almost > a decade of maintaining python packages. That's a clear symptom of bad > discovery, although the upstream Makefile changes may help with that > eventually. Actually quite many packages tend to provide the -m syntax and even prefer it to scripts in /usr/bin/. Examples from packages I maintain: -m markdown, -m keyring, -m nose. > > Also there is no such thing as sphinx3-build upstream (unlike other packages > > that follow this convention). So all upstream projects will try to use > > sphinx-build, not sphinx3-build, even if they are Python 3 only. And if you > > override this command anyway, you can use two existing ways, I don’t see a > > need for the third one. > > The reasoning here is that is is more discoverable, namely through > commandline completion, and is consistent with the /usr/bin/python* > binary naming conventions. I have just figured out that there *is* bash completion for python3 -m syntax. It is not difficult for me to provide the sphinx3-* binaries, but that might create false assumptions for developers that it is available on other systems too. It is better to use the -m syntax because it is more universal and works on any OS. > > I won’t say that this convention is usual. There are many packages named > > python-* or python3-* which provide executable scripts. > > I would argue that is a strange practice: I tend to ignore packages that > start with python* unless I am programming something. As a user, they > are basically useless because I am supposed to code something to use > those libraries. Now, granted, sphinx is a little special because it > *is* a programmer-oriented library, but keep in mind it can be used for > non-programs as well (see the Debian policy for example). > > > Let me summarize what you, in my opinion, should do as a maintainer of > > packages using Sphinx: > > > > 1) If your project is not using autodoc: just build-depend on python3-sphinx > >
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
On 2017-09-28 01:03:27, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Antoine, and thanks for the detailed mail!
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 06:29:05PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> We just had a short conversation on the #debian-devel IRC channel
>> regarding the upcoming Python 2 EOL, in the context of the Sphinx
>> packages.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So that's the first problem I have. The other problem we identified is
>> that the /usr/bin/sphinx-build symlink is not owned by any package.
>>
>> $ LANG=C dpkg -S /usr/bin/sphinx-build
>> dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /usr/bin/sphinx-build
>>
>> That's a rather bad practice... We shouldn't install those symlinks in
>> postinst. They should be alternatives or conflicts or *something*. In
>> 2013, the sphinx maintainer [explained][1] the following:
>>
>> > True for docutils; however, sphinx doesn't use alternatives, and it
>> > doesn't do so for good reasons.
>> >
>> > The alternatives mechanisms is only suitable if both commands are
>> > compatible, i.e. their behavior doesn't vary with Python version. This
>> > is the case for rst2html and friends, but no so much for
>> > sphinx-build. The problem is that sphinx-build can import 3rd-party
>> > Python code, which is not necessarily compatible with both Python 2
>> > and 3.
>>
>> I understand that reasoning, but I don't think I agree with it. Or at
>> least, I don't think that, in the long term, it should be something that
>> blocks us.
>
> I think the reason why we should not use alternatives still applies. The
> current approach is conservative and it guarantees that when a package has
> python-sphinx in build-dependencies, /usr/bin/sphinx-build will always use
> Python 2. With alternatives there is no such guarantee.
Understood, fair point.
> And moving Python 3 packages to /usr/bin/sphinx3-build or something like
> that will mean diverging from upstream (see below).
Note that we already diverge from upstream in numerous places in Python,
first and foremost in the naming of the Python binary itself.
>> I am not sure what the solution is, but I would offer the following:
>>
>> 1. there should be a more easy way to override SPHINXBUILD in
>> quickstart-generated Makefiles. IMHO, that means SPHINXBUILD?=
>> instead of SPHINXBUILD=
>
> Good suggestion, I have submitted a pull request upstream:
> https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/4092
Excellent - I meant to do that but ran out of time writing the email in
the first place. :)
I see, however, it's not getting too much traction.. But they have a
fair point - I didn't realize there was a difference between variables
from the environment and from the commandline in Make. Maybe it's good
enough as it is then.
>> 2. similarly, --with=sphinx should do the right thing depending on the
>> detected pybuild Python version, that is, call
>> /usr/share/sphinx/scripts/python{,3}/sphinx-build directly depending
>> on which version we are building for.
>
> I do not understand this. You mentioned pybuild, so you are talking about
> setup.py based build systems, not Makefile based ones, right?
True. Well, technically, I refer to dh_sphinxdoc, but from what I could
tell, that doesn't seem to actually *build* the documentation, but just
clean it up, something I didn't expect.
> If setup.py calls build_sphinx automatically, then there is nothing else
> to do. If it does not, then you should call ‘setup.py build_sphinx’ with
> explicit interpreter, i.e. python or python3.
>
> The only thing where pybuild may help is when you want to run Sphinx for
> all supported Python versions, then you can use its COMMAND syntax.
>
> And there is no such thing as --with=sphinx. There is --with=sphinxdoc,
> but it operates on already built and installed documentation, so it cannot
> help with building.
I guess this is what I mean should be automated better. Every time I
used --with=sphinxdoc, I expected it to build the docs and then
remembered, when the produced package lacked any docs whatsoever, that I
needed to build things myself.
A simple --with=sphinxdoc should be sufficient to build sphinx docs. We
shouldn't expect upstream to do that step in setup.py, as it is rarely
hooked into the main build. Yes, there's the `build_sphinx` command, but
it's not hooked into `setup.py build` except in some rare project.
This is why I mention pybuild: maybe *that* is where docs should be
built? I am not sure. In any case, I feel there's a shim missing here,
and there's a good occasion to leverage the automation we have to
generate proper build deps and build-time commands.
>> 3. sphinx packages should follow the "python vs python3"
>> convention. right now, when you run the "python" binary, you get
>> Python 2. if you want Python 3, you run "python3". I don't know if
>> there are plans to change this, but that's irrelevant at this stage:
>> sphinx should follow convention and call python2 sphinx when you run
>> "sphinx-build" and python3 sphinx when
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 at 01:03:27 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 06:29:05PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > > 1. there should be a more easy way to override SPHINXBUILD in > > quickstart-generated Makefiles. IMHO, that means SPHINXBUILD?= > > instead of SPHINXBUILD= > > Good suggestion, I have submitted a pull request upstream: > https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/4092 I'm not sure this is necessary. If a Makefile has SPHINXBUILD = sphinx-build # or := or ::= some-target: $(SPHINXBUILD) some-arguments then you can override it on the command-line: make SPHINXBUILD="python3 -m sphinx" without needing the ?= syntax. The ?= syntax is only necessary if you want to pick up a value from the environment: export SPHINXBUILD="python3 -m sphinx"; make or if your Makefile has complicated logic that may or may not have set it already: ifeq(...) SPHINXBUILD = $(PYTHON) -m sphinx endif SPHINXBUILD ?= sphinx-build The Makefiles generated by GNU Automake, which are very verbose but generally also very good about doing the right thing in the face of strange make(1) quirks, use plain "=". (I've said the same on the upstream PR.) Regards, smcv
Re: providing sphinx3-* binaries
Hi Antoine, and thanks for the detailed mail!
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 06:29:05PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> We just had a short conversation on the #debian-devel IRC channel
> regarding the upcoming Python 2 EOL, in the context of the Sphinx
> packages.
>
> [...]
>
> So that's the first problem I have. The other problem we identified is
> that the /usr/bin/sphinx-build symlink is not owned by any package.
>
> $ LANG=C dpkg -S /usr/bin/sphinx-build
> dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /usr/bin/sphinx-build
>
> That's a rather bad practice... We shouldn't install those symlinks in
> postinst. They should be alternatives or conflicts or *something*. In
> 2013, the sphinx maintainer [explained][1] the following:
>
> > True for docutils; however, sphinx doesn't use alternatives, and it
> > doesn't do so for good reasons.
> >
> > The alternatives mechanisms is only suitable if both commands are
> > compatible, i.e. their behavior doesn't vary with Python version. This
> > is the case for rst2html and friends, but no so much for
> > sphinx-build. The problem is that sphinx-build can import 3rd-party
> > Python code, which is not necessarily compatible with both Python 2
> > and 3.
>
> I understand that reasoning, but I don't think I agree with it. Or at
> least, I don't think that, in the long term, it should be something that
> blocks us.
I think the reason why we should not use alternatives still applies. The
current approach is conservative and it guarantees that when a package has
python-sphinx in build-dependencies, /usr/bin/sphinx-build will always use
Python 2. With alternatives there is no such guarantee.
And moving Python 3 packages to /usr/bin/sphinx3-build or something like
that will mean diverging from upstream (see below).
> I am not sure what the solution is, but I would offer the following:
>
> 1. there should be a more easy way to override SPHINXBUILD in
> quickstart-generated Makefiles. IMHO, that means SPHINXBUILD?=
> instead of SPHINXBUILD=
Good suggestion, I have submitted a pull request upstream:
https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/4092
> 2. similarly, --with=sphinx should do the right thing depending on the
> detected pybuild Python version, that is, call
> /usr/share/sphinx/scripts/python{,3}/sphinx-build directly depending
> on which version we are building for.
I do not understand this. You mentioned pybuild, so you are talking about
setup.py based build systems, not Makefile based ones, right?
If setup.py calls build_sphinx automatically, then there is nothing else
to do. If it does not, then you should call ‘setup.py build_sphinx’ with
explicit interpreter, i.e. python or python3.
The only thing where pybuild may help is when you want to run Sphinx for
all supported Python versions, then you can use its COMMAND syntax.
And there is no such thing as --with=sphinx. There is --with=sphinxdoc,
but it operates on already built and installed documentation, so it cannot
help with building.
> 3. sphinx packages should follow the "python vs python3"
> convention. right now, when you run the "python" binary, you get
> Python 2. if you want Python 3, you run "python3". I don't know if
> there are plans to change this, but that's irrelevant at this stage:
> sphinx should follow convention and call python2 sphinx when you run
> "sphinx-build" and python3 sphinx when you run "sphinx3-build", and
> both should be available in $PATH.
What is the problem with using /usr/share/sphinx/scripts/python3/sphinx-build
explicitly if you want to force Python 3?
If you like shorter command names, then you can also use ‘python3 -m sphinx’.
Using the -m syntax instead of scripts is even endorsed by Sphinx upstream
these days (see your link [2]).
Also there is no such thing as sphinx3-build upstream (unlike other packages
that follow this convention). So all upstream projects will try to use
sphinx-build, not sphinx3-build, even if they are Python 3 only. And if you
override this command anyway, you can use two existing ways, I don’t see a
need for the third one.
> 4. the sphinx package is not following the usual convention of
> providing only libraries in python*. or to be more precise, it's
> rather odd that "sphinx-common" is what installs the python2 or
> python3 binary in $PATH. i would suggest providing new binary
> packages called "sphinx" and "sphinx3" that would provide those
> binaries.
I won’t say that this convention is usual. There are many packages named
python-* or python3-* which provide executable scripts.
Let me summarize what you, in my opinion, should do as a maintainer of
packages using Sphinx:
1) If your project is not using autodoc: just build-depend on python3-sphinx
and use /usr/bin/sphinx-build. There is no need to care about versions.
2) If your project uses autodoc, and is compatible with both Python 2 and 3:
same as in 1), just use /usr/bin/sphinx-build.
3) If your project uses
