https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227862
--- Comment #4 from Kai <freebsd_po...@k-worx.org> --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #3) Hello Kubilay, thanks for committing the update. I'll rework a small rebased patch for the DOCS option but I'm a little confused about the fact that there were some build errors with the DOCS option enabled. Maybe I'm still missing some QA testing technique and thus my workflow needs some improvement? My usual way to do QA with the "make test" target for Python ports is at the moment: Testing the build process: > poudriere testport -i -j JAIL -p PORTS -o PORT_TO_TEST Inside the jail I do usually for Python ports (using py-tox as example with FLAVOR=py27) with a already defined "do-test" target: > cd /usr/ports/devel/py-tox > make test After these steps I check the logs for packages, that were missing or have been fetched from PyPi. You're right that both devel/py-pluggy + devel/py-py packages are not required as DOCS_BUILD_DEPENDS to build the package successfully. But there will be some warnings during the sphinx build process that these modules could not be imported when they are left out, e.g: > ImportError: No module named pluggy > /wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/py-tox/work-py27/tox-3.0.0/doc/plugins.rst:89: > > WARNING: autodoc: failed to import class u'TestenvConfig' from module > u'tox.config'; the following exception was raised: Can such warnings be safely ignored? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-python@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-python To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-python-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
