docutils: 0.19 → 0.20.1

[toastal]

Description of changes

fixes #243069

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Maintainer: @AndersonTorres

[AndersonTorres]

I believe this should be into staging, because of too much rebuilds.

[AndersonTorres]

rebase to staging

[AndersonTorres]

Ping to rebase this over staging.

[toastal]

Oops. Something happened. Was git pull --rebase upstream staging not what was needed @AndersonTorres ?

[AndersonTorres]

You need to set this on Github too. There is a small tutorial on Contributing.md

(If this is too hard to follow, you can close this PR and open a new one.)

[toastal]

@AndersonTorres I think it’s all cleared up (other than pinging like 10 new people). I could start a new merge request if preferable.

In the unlikely event that the tests fail, I’ll open a new merge request.

[AndersonTorres]

Ok. It was less dramatic than I was thought initially.

I would like someone tested Darwin locally, because ofborg is bailing out.

[toastal]

Has anyone tested on Darwin?

[trofi]

Bisect says commit 20642ff broke python3Packages.sphinx on staging as:

$ nix build --no-link -f. python3Packages.sphinx -L
...
python3.10-sphinx> ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement docutils<0.20,>=0.14 (from sphinx) (from versions: none)
python3.10-sphinx> ERROR: No matching distribution found for docutils<0.20,>=0.14

[AndersonTorres]

It needs to be updated too:

https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/blob/65fd5be20d0269c47fbf8c5bbc37a6f24324594b/pyproject.toml#L65

[AndersonTorres]

#249230

[AndersonTorres]

@trofi do you prefer a revert?

[trofi]

I have no preference. My system uses sphinx for btrfs-progs (first failing user) and maybe a few other things like ghc.

[toastal]

sphinx-doc/sphinx#11411

Sphinx should support 0.20.x

[toastal]

I use docutils standalone for my personal stuff & am using 0.20.x features such as support for abstracts.

[toastal]

Sphinx is @ 7.1.x, but Nixpkgs unstable @ 5.3.x. IMO this is something that should be raised with Sphinx’s maintainer to update rather than holding back & reverting this stable version. Both this docutils version & that patch to Sphinx have been out since 2023-06.

Edit: already an open issue #249230

[AndersonTorres]

I believe the best course of action is really a reversion.