Errors building from source about dbt-docs

[guy-adams]

@drewbanin - that's very weird - although the final error I was getting was nothing to do with permissions, when I ran:

cd styles
bundle install
bundle exec jekyll build
cd -

instead of

cd styles
jekyll build
cd -

It ran fine. Wierd that this resolves an error related to "unclosed parenthesis".

My Gemfile.lock is slight different to yours

GEM
  remote: https://rubygems.org/
  specs:
    addressable (2.7.0)
      public_suffix (>= 2.0.2, < 5.0)
    colorator (1.1.0)
    concurrent-ruby (1.1.6)
    em-websocket (0.5.1)
      eventmachine (>= 0.12.9)
      http_parser.rb (~> 0.6.0)
    eventmachine (1.2.7)
    ffi (1.12.2)
    forwardable-extended (2.6.0)
    http_parser.rb (0.6.0)
    i18n (0.9.5)
      concurrent-ruby (~> 1.0)
    jekyll (3.8.6)
      addressable (~> 2.4)
      colorator (~> 1.0)
      em-websocket (~> 0.5)
      i18n (~> 0.7)
      jekyll-sass-converter (~> 1.0)
      jekyll-watch (~> 2.0)
      kramdown (~> 1.14)
      liquid (~> 4.0)
      mercenary (~> 0.3.3)
      pathutil (~> 0.9)
      rouge (>= 1.7, < 4)
      safe_yaml (~> 1.0)
    jekyll-sass-converter (1.5.2)
      sass (~> 3.4)
    jekyll-watch (2.2.1)
      listen (~> 3.0)
    kramdown (1.17.0)
    liquid (4.0.3)
    listen (3.2.1)
      rb-fsevent (~> 0.10, >= 0.10.3)
      rb-inotify (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.10)
    mercenary (0.3.6)
    pathutil (0.16.2)
      forwardable-extended (~> 2.6)
    public_suffix (4.0.3)
    rb-fsevent (0.10.3)
    rb-inotify (0.10.1)
      ffi (~> 1.0)
    rouge (3.16.0)
    safe_yaml (1.0.5)
    sass (3.7.4)
      sass-listen (~> 4.0.0)
    sass-listen (4.0.0)
      rb-fsevent (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.4)
      rb-inotify (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.7)

PLATFORMS
  ruby

DEPENDENCIES
  jekyll (~> 3.8)

BUNDLED WITH
   2.1.4

Minor version differences but I notice I don't have ruby_dep - still, it's working fine now!

Would you like a PR for the instructions that work for me?

[alf-mindshift]

This issue seems to be related to sass/libsass#2223

The compilation fails when using a jekyll that's using libsass instead of ruby sass.

[drewbanin]

Hey @guy-adams - that's a weird one!

Re: sudo: can you try using something like bundle exec jekyll build instead? I'm not a ruby expert anymore so I'd need to do some digging on the details, but I typically just prefix ruby commands with bundle exec ... whenever I get permission errors :)

Re: that error message. I'm not sure where that's coming from, as I don't see it happening on my machine. This is my Gemfile.lock file - do you see any noteworthy differences from your around the jekyll/scss/sass versions?

Gemfile.lock

GEM
  remote: https://rubygems.org/
  specs:
    addressable (2.6.0)
      public_suffix (>= 2.0.2, < 4.0)
    colorator (1.1.0)
    concurrent-ruby (1.1.5)
    em-websocket (0.5.1)
      eventmachine (>= 0.12.9)
      http_parser.rb (~> 0.6.0)
    eventmachine (1.2.7)
    ffi (1.10.0)
    forwardable-extended (2.6.0)
    http_parser.rb (0.6.0)
    i18n (0.9.5)
      concurrent-ruby (~> 1.0)
    jekyll (3.8.6)
      addressable (~> 2.4)
      colorator (~> 1.0)
      em-websocket (~> 0.5)
      i18n (~> 0.7)
      jekyll-sass-converter (~> 1.0)
      jekyll-watch (~> 2.0)
      kramdown (~> 1.14)
      liquid (~> 4.0)
      mercenary (~> 0.3.3)
      pathutil (~> 0.9)
      rouge (>= 1.7, < 4)
      safe_yaml (~> 1.0)
    jekyll-sass-converter (1.5.2)
      sass (~> 3.4)
    jekyll-watch (2.2.1)
      listen (~> 3.0)
    kramdown (1.17.0)
    liquid (4.0.3)
    listen (3.1.5)
      rb-fsevent (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.4)
      rb-inotify (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.7)
      ruby_dep (~> 1.2)
    mercenary (0.3.6)
    pathutil (0.16.2)
      forwardable-extended (~> 2.6)
    public_suffix (3.0.3)
    rb-fsevent (0.10.3)
    rb-inotify (0.10.0)
      ffi (~> 1.0)
    rouge (3.3.0)
    ruby_dep (1.5.0)
    safe_yaml (1.0.5)
    sass (3.7.3)
      sass-listen (~> 4.0.0)
    sass-listen (4.0.0)
      rb-fsevent (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.4)
      rb-inotify (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.7)

PLATFORMS
  ruby

DEPENDENCIES
  jekyll (~> 3.8)

BUNDLED WITH
   2.0.1

[github-actions]

This issue has been marked as Stale because it has been open for 180 days with no activity. If you would like the issue to remain open, please remove the stale label or comment on the issue, or it will be closed in 7 days.