Hi Helmut! On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:43:42PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Now the questions are: > * Is the requested sphinx (the cli) and python3-sphinx (the module) > split a reasonable thing to do? > * Is the transition plan a reasonable thing to do?
I think it makes sense and is reasonable, yes.
And I definitely like the new plan more than the previously discussed
approach of making sphinx Architecture: any.
> * Is this transition worth the cost (cross building vs changing lots of
> packages)?
It would be nice to have a better estimate of how many packages can be
fixed in an automated way in DPMT [1], how many packages cannot be fixed
at all (e.g. because they use sphinx from Python interface) and how many
packages are remaining.
[1] Ondřej Nový did the previous mass change that changed ‘sphinx-build’
to ‘python3 -m sphinx’ in debian/rules, perhaps it would be easy for
him to revert that change and at the same time update the build
dependency.
The first step (making python3-sphinx provide sphinx) is zero cost, so
I can do it quite soon.
> * Can we get rid of the use of update-alternatives?
update-alternatives is no longer needed because Sphinx no longer supports
Python 2.
Do you know what is the process of switching from update-alternatives
to directly shipping the symlink? Can I just drop the postinst/postrm
scripts and add that symlink, or I need to somehow unregister the
alternative when the package is upgraded?
--
Dmitry Shachnev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
