W dniu 15.06.2011 02:46, Jakub Wilk pisze:
* Zygmunt Krynicki <zygmunt.kryni...@canonical.com>, 2011-06-15, 01:03:
In a setup.py world:
$ python setup.py build_sphinx
This is all fine and pretty (thanks to python).
Only if you are happy that your extension modules are built in-place. :/
I did not use extension modules yes so I probably did not run into the
problem. Out of curiosity (and future-proofing my packages), what is the
good way of building those extension modules and why?
In recent versions of debhelper, dh_compress doesn't touch these files
anymore.
Cool!
build-depend on sphinx
*sigh*
Why sigh?
and recommend jquery on -doc package.
Why recommend? If you have a separate -doc package (hint: not every
package have one), there's no good reason to leave jquery.js symlink
dangling.
AFAIR because it's really required to read the documentation. It is only
used for the search feature. I don't remember the details but I found
this pattern to be used by several existing packages.
Always the same boring and useless text in -doc-base files.
Care to propose an algorithm for generating them?
It would help if there was an active user community that consumes those
files somehow. I don't see much value to them TBH. We could simply use a
placeholder text like "foobar-doc documents the python package
python-foobar".
Georg (the upstream Sphinx maintainer) makes a good point, which is
that he really can't be expected to test Sphinx with any version of
jquery than the one he ships.
I missed this part earlier.
Is it because jquery in sphinx is patched or is it because there is no
good backwards compatibility between various jquery releases?
Thanks
ZK
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4df80520.7080...@canonical.com
