linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 15/15] docs: conf.py: Check Sphinx and docutils version

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <875xgjacr2.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:37:37 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux
 Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/15] docs: conf.py: Check Sphinx and docutils version

Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> writes:

> Em Sun, 22 Jun 2025 14:58:04 -0600
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
>
>> Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 08:02:44 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:  
>> >> As reported by Akira, there were incompatibility issues with
>> >> Sphinx and docutils with docutils 0.19. There's already
>> >> a fix for it, but, as there are incompatibility issues with
>> >> different versions, better to add a check to verify if the
>> >> combination is supported/tested.
>> >>   
>> >
>> > I've been skeptical of adding such checks in conf.py.  
>> 
>> I have to kind of agree with this concern.  We have managed without this
>> complexity so far.  It looks like we could always be behind on
>> maintaining it going forward.  Do we *really* need this one?
>
> IMO having a check is interesting, as the dependency between
> Sphinx and docutils is high. Yet, with the testing script, this may
> not be needed, provided that we run it to check if changes at Sphinx
> extensions won't cause regressions. Still, the dependency check
> at test_doc_build.py is not complete.
>
> Anyway, if you prefer, don't pick this one. We can revisit it later
> when needed.

I've left it out for now, but applied the rest of the series.  Keep it
around, we may yet decide we need it...

Thanks,

jon