On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > 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". I didn't say it was just binary. I said there was suspicion that most ports just *use* the supplied programs and not the library. > > 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 most reasonable would be a intermediate step where we update to the last version that supports python 2. We're quite a bit older than that even. The *best* solution would be finding out if any of those python 2 ports actually use sphinx as an extensible library, or if they just use the default tools. Creating a whole separate python2 port would be a silly move if none of the python2 ports in question use sphinx as a library. --Kurt
