https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690046 --- Comment #8 from jogas@xxxxxxxx --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #7) > ... and the source built for me, so there doesn't seem to be a reason not > to include it. The html files build correctly with versions of sphinx-build greater than 1.4.9, which as far as I can tell, are not available in el7. We could build the documentation with broken list-tables on el7. This could be done by forcing sphinx-build to ignore warnings, instead of error. The thought here was that it may be better to provide pre-built html files via source tarball while we wait for a newer sphinx to become available in el7. Thus the approach in mind is as follows: * 0.9.8 (this version) provide man pages and a readme with a link to the html, documentation online. * 0.9.9 package pre-built html files via source tarball. When a newer version of sphinx is available in epel, we build them in the spec file. Thoughts? > If tests run without docker, can you run them in %check? (I don't know if > the builders have the namespace support turned on, and should probably > check; if not, perhaps it could be turned on if it helps this sort of > package.) The tests do run without docker, however, when I attempt to run them in the %check segment during rpmbuild, one of the tests that uses namespaces hangs. I am not sure why, as this behavior does not occur outside of rpmbuild. Perhaps we could add a sanity check like `ch-run --version`? > Hope that helps for the moment. It does, thank you. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
