Bug#837319: Bug#837311: cdist: FTBFS with some additional packages being installed: ImportError: No module named sphinx_rtd_theme
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo unreproducible
Control: severity -1 minor
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > cdist-doc depends on "sphinx-common (<< 1.4.5.0~), sphinx-common (>=
> > 1.4.5)" via ${sphinxdoc:Depends}. While this is generally fine, it also
> > means that cdist needs to be rebuilt against every new sphinx upstream
> > version.
> >
> > At the moment this causes the following issues:
> >
> > * cdist-doc is uninstallable in unstable.
> > * sphinx doesn't migrate to testing because it would break cdist-doc
> > there.
>
> Thanks for report. I will rebuild aganist sphinx/sid and upload new
> cdist revision.
Thanks. Will sponsor it (see below).
> > It though builds fine for me in pbuilder, i.e. inside a clean chroot
> > with just its build-dependencies and nothing else.
> >
> > So it seems that if Python 2.7 is also installed (and maybe some other
> > packages, too) but python-sphinx-rtd-theme (compared to the
> > build-dependency python3-sphinx-rtd-theme) is not installed, it doesn't
> > build, because Python 2.7 seems favoured over Python 3 and then
> > python-sphinx-rtd-theme would be needed instead of
> > python3-sphinx-rtd-theme.
>
> I can't reproduce it. Just built fine with python3-sphinx-rtd-theme
> installed, python-sphinx-rtd-theme not and with python2.7 installed.
Ok, that means there must be another package which causes this.
> > One probable solution which comes to my mind is a "Build-Conflicts:
> > python2.7", but I'm not sure if that's a really good idea.
>
> I am afraid of such measures. For example, it would mean, that I
> wouldn't be able to build without sbuild. (My computer have packages,
> that depends on python2.7)
Exactly that's why I think it's probably not a good idea.
> More input is welcome.
I'll dig deeper and let you.
But that also means that your upload at
http://mentors.debian.net/package/cdist will not fix this bug since
the bug is about a missing Build-Conflicts, not about the
uninstallability. The latter was just context on how I stumbled upon
that bug. #837312 is the actual uninstallability bug (which IMHO has
been prematurely closed by Mattia, because it won't work as BinNMU).
So please either drop the "(Closes: #837311)" from the changelog
completely or change it to "(Closes: #837312)".
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Reply to: