Am Freitag, den 20.07.2018, 10:52 -0400 schrieb Theodore Y. Ts'o: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 03:45:37PM +0200, Markus Heiser wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 20.07.2018, 09:12 -0400 schrieb Theodore Y. Ts'o: > > > I'm not entirely sure what's the best approach. Right now I just want > > > to understand --- do I have to make ext4.rst work against one, or many > > > versions of Sphinx? And which version(s) of Sphinx do I need to > > > concern myself with? If that turns out to be an onerous burden, I'm > > > sure I won't be the only person complaining. :-) > > > > In that case ... > > > > > But when I did that, Sphinx had heartburn over the ext4.rst file. > > > > > > ./include/linux/spi/spi.h:373: ERROR: Unexpected indentation. > > > /usr/projects/linux/ext4/Documentation/filesystems/ext4/ext4.rst:139: ERROR: Malformed table. > > > Column span alignment problem in table line 5. > > > > ... its clear; the table was malformed. A markup error which is not detected > > by older versions of docutils (very special case). > > ... except that newer verions are A-OK with it. Apparently 1.3.x was > OK with it, and 1.6.x and 1.7.x were ok with it. ***ONLY*** Sphinx > 1.4.9 blew up on the "malformed table". Are you sure that it was not due to the docutils version? I can't reproduce it but the table parser is a part of docutils. > > So in this case, Darrick has come up with a patch that is makes it OK > with 1.4.9 without breaking on 1.7.5 --- and obviously, doing > something that makes it broadly portable is the right thing. Right, fix it by the markup .. is what I recommend. > I'm asking a larger question, which is moving forward, which is more > important? Make it work with Sphinx 1.4.9? Or making it Sphinx work > with Sphinx 1.7.5? > > And should we change Documentation/sphinx/requirements.txt to require > something newer, such as Sphinx 1.7.5? And should we require that > Ubuntu 18.04 which is using Sphinx 1.6.8 use a virtualenv and use > download Sphinx 1.6.8? The requirements.txt came from commit fb947f3f47 [1] (inital 24071ac1a6). Where Jon and Mauro decided to tag explicit versions ... docutils==0.12 Sphinx==1.4.9 sphinx_rtd_theme Maybe it is time to switch to something like .. ? Sphinx>=1.4.9 sphinx_rtd_theme I don't know. Mauro has tested on many distros, he has more experience with the wide range of distros then I. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=fb947f3f47 > > My understanding that the Sphinx developers make no guarantees that if > we follow some external, version-indepedent spec, that it will work on > Sphinx version N, as well as Sphinx version N+1. (In the ideal world, > if there was such an independent spec for .rst format files, and a > compliant .rst file doesn't work for Sphinx version N, it's a bug, and > we should expect somebody --- perhaps the Distro's --- to backport the > fix from Sphinx version N+1 to Sphinx version N.) E.g., is there an > equivalent for ANSI C 1999 standard for .rst files? The reST markup is specified here: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html but the (last) example of the simple table does not match your "1.4.9" experience. -- Markus -- > > - Ted
