Em Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:37:37 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Em Sun, 22 Jun 2025 14:58:04 -0600 > > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > >> Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> 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... Ok, I placed on my scratch tree on github, on a separate branch: https://github.com/mchehab/linux/commits/check_sphinx_at_conf_py/ The patch is here: https://github.com/mchehab/linux/commit/178f37fce4aa16592b0c0b567ea0ffca744c3af5 (I'm documenting here just in case we forget and need it again ;-) ) Regards, Mauro > > Thanks, > > jon Thanks, Mauro
