On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 06:00:28PM +0200, Markus Heiser wrote:

Am Freitag, den 20.07.2018, 10:52 -0400 schrieb Theodore Y. Ts'o:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 03:45:37PM +0200, Markus Heiser wrote:

quoted

Am Freitag, den 20.07.2018, 09:12 -0400 schrieb Theodore Y. Ts'o:

quoted

I'm not entirely sure what's the best approach.  Right now I just want
to understand --- do I have to make ext4.rst work against one, or many
versions of Sphinx?  And which version(s) of Sphinx do I need to
concern myself with?  If that turns out to be an onerous burden, I'm
sure I won't be the only person complaining.  :-)

In that case ...

quoted

But when I did that, Sphinx had heartburn over the ext4.rst file.

    ./include/linux/spi/spi.h:373: ERROR: Unexpected indentation.
    /usr/projects/linux/ext4/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/ext4.rst:139: ERROR: Malformed table.
    Column span alignment problem in table line 5.

... its clear; the table was malformed. A markup error which is not detected
by older versions of docutils (very special case).

... except that newer verions are A-OK with it.  Apparently 1.3.x was
OK with it, and 1.6.x and 1.7.x were ok with it.  ***ONLY*** Sphinx
1.4.9 blew up on the "malformed table".

Are you sure that it was not due to the docutils version?
I can't reproduce it but the table parser is a part of docutils.

No idea.  With the virtualenv instructions I get:

$ pip list | egrep -i '(sphinx|docutils)'
docutils         0.12   
Sphinx           1.4.9  
sphinx-rtd-theme 0.4.0  

With Ubuntu 18.04 I get:

$ dpkg -l | egrep -i '(sphinx|docutils)' | awk '{print $2, $3}' | sort -k 2
docutils-common 0.14+dfsg-3
python3-docutils 0.14+dfsg-3
python3-sphinx-rtd-theme 0.2.4-1
sphinx-rtd-theme-common 0.2.4-1
python3-alabaster 0.7.8-1
libjs-sphinxdoc 1.6.7-1ubuntu1
python3-sphinx 1.6.7-1ubuntu1
sphinx-common 1.6.7-1ubuntu1

Ok, newer docutils, maybe that's what it is?

With Ubuntu 16.04 I get:

$ dpkg -l | egrep -i '(sphinx|docutils)' | awk '{print $2, $3}' | sort -k 2
docutils-common 0.12+dfsg-1
python-docutils 0.12+dfsg-1
python-sphinx-rtd-theme 0.1.9-1
sphinx-rtd-theme-common 0.1.9-1
python-alabaster 0.7.7-1
libjs-sphinxdoc 1.3.6-2ubuntu1.1
python-sphinx 1.3.6-2ubuntu1.1
sphinx-common 1.3.6-2ubuntu1.1

and now I'm just confused since 16.04 has the same version of docutils
and an older sphinx and runs fine; but 18.04 has newer docutils and
newer sphinx and runs fine.

quoted

So in this case, Darrick has come up with a patch that is makes it OK
with 1.4.9 without breaking on 1.7.5 --- and obviously, doing
something that makes it broadly portable is the right thing.

Right, fix it by the markup .. is what I recommend.

quoted

I'm asking a larger question, which is moving forward, which is more
important?  Make it work with Sphinx 1.4.9?  Or making it Sphinx work
with Sphinx 1.7.5?

And should we change Documentation/sphinx/requirements.txt to require
something newer, such as Sphinx 1.7.5?  And should we require that
Ubuntu 18.04 which is using Sphinx 1.6.8 use a virtualenv and use
download Sphinx 1.6.8?

The requirements.txt came from commit fb947f3f47 [1] (inital 24071ac1a6).
Where Jon and Mauro decided to tag explicit versions ...

docutils==0.12
Sphinx==1.4.9
sphinx_rtd_theme

Maybe it is time to switch to something like .. ?

Sphinx>=1.4.9
sphinx_rtd_theme

I don't know. Mauro has tested on many distros, he has more experience with
the wide range of distros then I.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=fb947f3f47

quoted

My understanding that the Sphinx developers make no guarantees that if
we follow some external, version-indepedent spec, that it will work on
Sphinx version N, as well as Sphinx version N+1.  (In the ideal world,
if there was such an independent spec for .rst format files, and a
compliant .rst file doesn't work for Sphinx version N, it's a bug, and
we should expect somebody --- perhaps the Distro's --- to backport the
fix from Sphinx version N+1 to Sphinx version N.)  E.g., is there an
equivalent for ANSI C 1999 standard for .rst files?

The reST markup is specified here:

 http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html

but the (last) example of the simple table does not match your "1.4.9"
experience.

Yes.  This makes writing broadly portable markup difficult -- originally
I did not take the '=' all the way to the right edge of the table
because I saw that last example in the above document and assumed that
it wasn't necessary to extend the '=' all the way to the right edge.
Neither Ubuntu system choked on it, so is this a bug in upstream?  Some
strange patch added by the distro?  Something that ended up in the
python wheel?  Or a bug in the spec?

--D

-- Markus --

quoted

		       	      	   	    - Ted

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html