Re: building manpages via setup.py
On 02/08/17 09:55, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build -N -b html <docs_dir> <build_dir>
One can also use the sphinx-generated Makefile if available:
PYTHONPATH=$(CURDIR) $(MAKE) -C <docs_dir> html
Both are simple one-liners and do not rely on pybuild.
Yes it works but this is fragile since the organisation of the module can change in the sources.
First, that's very speculative. Second, that's upstream's problem.
I have not seen many upstream projects playing with the layout of their
modules from one version to the next. If that's the case, then there are
worst things to be worried about (API breakage for instance) than the docs.
at least the .pybuild directory is under the responsability of pybuild and we should use pybuild instead of relying
on the maintainer snipset. (typo error, change during the time.)
The upstream Makefile and conf.py are likely generated by Sphinx itself
via sphinx-quickstart. Did your upstream tinker with them that much that
they cannot be trusted?
It would be nice if the doc generation in python shold be standardize.
Some upstream do use a build_sphinx command, but it is far from common
and it does not solve the extension module problem.
If it does not cost much to build the extension inplace, then the
simplest option is to prefix one of these calls above with:
python3 setup.py build_ext --inplace
when you have multiple verison of the interpreter you prefer to avoid --inplace.
Why? All you need is *one* occurrence of the extension modules somewhere
in the PYTHONPATH in order to generate the docs. Chances are that's how
upstream generates them.
I fail to picture how this is an issue in practice considering your
build override will run the isolated pybuilds first and the sphinx call
last.
If the cost is prohibitive, which arguably applies to a very limited set
of packages (yours included) then you would use pybuild for that, as
Piotr kindly suggested.
Yes it depends olsa of the arch. Some are really slow....
That's unfortunate, indeed.
Considering the rarity of this use case though, I wonder whether it is
worth adding a separate section to the style guide.
Found a total of 643 reverse build-depend(s) for python-all-dev.
not that small
How is the ratio over all the Python packages? I suspect very small.
Reply to: