On 2020/09/07 12:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 05:44:41AM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 08:45:32PM -0400, Aisha Tammy wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I've noticed that the sphinx in ports is *really*
> > > old and hasn't been updated for quite sometime.
> >
> > > I understand that its got a huge amount of reverse dependencies
> > > and can't just be updated at will, but I was wondering if it might
> > > be possible to add something like py-sphinx3 which is a different
> > > package and then is possible start shifting packages?
> >
> > > I am trying to see if I should do this if there's any interest or if
> > > people would prefer to do it some different way?
> > > Quite some packages would be upgradable if sphinx is updated.
> >
> > Others have weighed in. I did send out an update to a version that
> > still had python 2.x support. The question was raised if we needed to
> > do that though. It has been suspected that most/all just use the binary
>
> sphinx is an extendable python library, to use sphinx in a configurable way one
> needs to be able to import sphinx modules in your Python code.
> So it's not just "binary".
That is correct, but many ports do just use the standalone tools.
> > to generate documentation rather than using the libraries (which would
> > still potentially require the python2 version). I got distracted onto
> > other things and have been busy otherwise. If you want to investigate
> > that, it would be great.
>
> as already suggested, the most reasonable would be to rename the current sphinx port
> sphinx2, and make the current (the currect stable version is 3.2.1),
> Python 3-only, sphinx the default sphinx port.
The question is whether any *python 2* ports require import or if they
just use the tools.
If they just use the tools, then there's no benefit to having multiple
versions.
No comments:
Post a Comment