Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs/bibliography depends on docutils>0.19.0 #735

Closed
2bndy5 opened this issue May 1, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

docs/bibliography depends on docutils>0.19.0 #735

2bndy5 opened this issue May 1, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@2bndy5
Copy link
Contributor

2bndy5 commented May 1, 2023

# docutils is an automatic dependency of Sphinx. This is only necessary until docutils > 0.19.0 is released:
-e svn+https://svn.code.sf.net/p/docutils/code/trunk/docutils@9126#egg=docutils

docutils v0.19 is released, so I think this can be removed or changed to

docutils>=0.19

This would also improve dev workflows for local environments that don't have svn installed.

PS - This specification also may limit what version of Sphinx can be used (>=5.0 IIRC), but thankfully this is only stated for the docs and not the lib itself.

@2bndy5
Copy link
Contributor Author

2bndy5 commented May 1, 2023

git blame references #701

@mgeier
Copy link
Member

mgeier commented May 3, 2023

This is a strict "greater than": docutils > 0.19.0

The problem is still present in 0.19.0 and there hasn't been a new release yet.

thankfully this is only stated for the docs and not the lib itself

Yes, because this is only a problem when a bibliography is needed (which is the case in the docs).

@2bndy5 2bndy5 changed the title docs dependencies outdated for docutils docs/bibliography depends on docutils>0.19.0 May 3, 2023
@2bndy5
Copy link
Contributor Author

2bndy5 commented May 3, 2023

I'm leaving this open for tracking, but you can close this if you want (you seem to be on top of it).

@mgeier
Copy link
Member

mgeier commented May 6, 2023

If all goes well, a new version of docutils will be released next week. After that, I will remove the work-around.

@mgeier
Copy link
Member

mgeier commented May 21, 2023

I have removed the work-around in #742.

@mgeier mgeier closed this as completed May 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants