Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Cleaning the docs first seems to have fixed it.
>
> Is there a way to download the build products (i.e. the PDF file
> produced)?
That, and testing for doc build failures, is the point, although I
managed to screw up the uploading until now. However, I believe I have
Cleaning the docs first seems to have fixed it.
Is there a way to download the build products (i.e. the PDF file produced)?
Mike
Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Hmm... I can't reproduce this locally. But it looks like it's using
> doctree files cached from a previous run.
>
> I'll try calling "py
Hmm... I can't reproduce this locally. But it looks like it's using
doctree files cached from a previous run.
I'll try calling "python make.py clean" before "python make.py all" in
the _buildbot_doc.sh (at least temporarily), to try to get a complete
build log which might offer more clues.
M
Eric Firing wrote:
> John Hunter wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
>>
>>> Jae-Joon Lee wrote:
>>>
Maybe we need something like "python make.py clean"?
It already does have "clean", but from the looks of it, it is currently
broken (I
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> Rolling this into the Python package distribution scheme seems backwards
> though, since a lot of binary packages that have nothing to do with Python
> are used as well
Yep, exactly.
>
> To solve the exact problem you (and me) have
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:23 AM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
>> Another way is to provide our own repository for a few major
>> distributions, with automatically built packages. This is how most
>> open source providers work. Miguel de Icaza explains this well:
>>
>> http://
