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<TAB>" 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
Reply to: