[Python-modules-team] Bug#961206: improve sphinx usage for cross building

[Dmitry Shachnev]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/python-modules-team/attachments/20200526/20e255ed/attachment.sig>