On 2020/09/07 12:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 05:44:41AM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 08:45:32PM -0400, Aisha Tammy wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I've noticed that the sphinx in ports is *really* > > > old and hasn't been updated for quite sometime. > > > > > I understand that its got a huge amount of reverse dependencies > > > and can't just be updated at will, but I was wondering if it might > > > be possible to add something like py-sphinx3 which is a different > > > package and then is possible start shifting packages? > > > > > I am trying to see if I should do this if there's any interest or if > > > people would prefer to do it some different way? > > > Quite some packages would be upgradable if sphinx is updated. > > > > Others have weighed in. I did send out an update to a version that > > still had python 2.x support. The question was raised if we needed to > > do that though. It has been suspected that most/all just use the binary > > sphinx is an extendable python library, to use sphinx in a configurable way > one > needs to be able to import sphinx modules in your Python code. > So it's not just "binary".
That is correct, but many ports do just use the standalone tools. > > to generate documentation rather than using the libraries (which would > > still potentially require the python2 version). I got distracted onto > > other things and have been busy otherwise. If you want to investigate > > that, it would be great. > > as already suggested, the most reasonable would be to rename the current > sphinx port > sphinx2, and make the current (the currect stable version is 3.2.1), > Python 3-only, sphinx the default sphinx port. The question is whether any *python 2* ports require import or if they just use the tools. If they just use the tools, then there's no benefit to having multiple versions.
