From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 385DB285C9F; Wed, 25 Jun 2025 18:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750876661; cv=none; b=lf/r+dqa1w38SB9EfPKf+0swkk1ZoOl0Avw0S6mwQjpf4VnnMLrYFyVLKxLE64XvcSUMzjUiUZFW97+kmpiV+q8gzGlMLd38B9Su80Q52rc1hatdV4Uim+QE9qAVI/r6z6S5s+P9F3OoaXoqlbNTLiw3uCwD5tursVuMFXdy/Iw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750876661; c=relaxed/simple; bh=k2sJYG8NaOsjUJqqYSHVdnn4nS1nM6aOGXvJkILoxjw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Pp27joOPnaJJ706yqIjcVFeNyPDPHK60kLgI30cVwXmKq45IEBheiKwmIEbC9o7W9SJ6XaxUFh2Xv76yywyBCuWJq1JJ03HUbfSObQs+lCUGOZaYF75f/nyhfAtWn9oYC9sAouSM7+ICNgBvDEfzs6ze3vXKkNBMYMxxNzE0888= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=ZDETtbEy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="ZDETtbEy" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 2579940AB1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1750876658; bh=+Zt8DtoRnxpBCBNrEG4Kials1Bl4NmdCHgUsjOo21Qw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ZDETtbEyD1cMUt5m2zllYq8IkKPY/q5usVljq1la96Bz2WmA2iq5oPTRfTuh5fCa4 dpcKaN9CAU6oema7742aC6DHZBJBOEjZaWrSfl7Sf3L5E4fF7TkZi0uccUV1tw2d4U uUHVJRdKvNisKi+Hm2KqsY1BBWNJrtN7xZn8ZeIDtyOQk5l/kf0B0sQ0e3Un1zm8iC zu7FE8gbxc0kIEbWD3MPEA1ncLY2qwDNfYNiqpBXABLI5g4CUtkiuiwPdFh2/crzX3 PsRfhnnaRJV5RONkwHoTzh8xd4QfQ1IJgV58NbBPf5zw196Ps0RbVdB4jNN2TYqqJx CBuXWQsSi83ZQ== Received: from localhost (c-73-14-55-248.hsd1.co.comcast.net [73.14.55.248]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2579940AB1; Wed, 25 Jun 2025 18:37:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Akira Yokosawa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Doc Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/15] docs: conf.py: Check Sphinx and docutils version In-Reply-To: <20250622235052.05804137@foz.lan> References: <972673b0a5bf5537d47780d6f8e70ae45456e751.1750571906.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> <87v7ona3z7.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20250622235052.05804137@foz.lan> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:37:37 -0600 Message-ID: <875xgjacr2.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > Em Sun, 22 Jun 2025 14:58:04 -0600 > Jonathan Corbet escreveu: > >> Akira Yokosawa writes: >> >> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 08:02:44 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> >> As reported by Akira, there were incompatibility issues with >> >> Sphinx and docutils with docutils 0.19. There's already >> >> a fix for it, but, as there are incompatibility issues with >> >> different versions, better to add a check to verify if the >> >> combination is supported/tested. >> >> >> > >> > I've been skeptical of adding such checks in conf.py. >> >> I have to kind of agree with this concern. We have managed without this >> complexity so far. It looks like we could always be behind on >> maintaining it going forward. Do we *really* need this one? > > IMO having a check is interesting, as the dependency between > Sphinx and docutils is high. Yet, with the testing script, this may > not be needed, provided that we run it to check if changes at Sphinx > extensions won't cause regressions. Still, the dependency check > at test_doc_build.py is not complete. > > Anyway, if you prefer, don't pick this one. We can revisit it later > when needed. I've left it out for now, but applied the rest of the series. Keep it around, we may yet decide we need it... Thanks, jon