Created attachment 900510 [details] Proposed patch When testing OpenStack Swift, usually the following happens right away after a git clone and python setup.py build: [zaitcev@guren swift-tip]$ PYTHONPATH=$(pwd) ./.unittests ............................ ERROR: test_run_server_conf_dir (test.unit.common.test_wsgi.TestWSGI) Traceback (most recent call last): File "/q/zaitcev/hail/swift-tip/test/unit/common/test_wsgi.py", line 399, in test_run_server_conf_dir conf = wsgi.appconfig(conf_dir) [......traceback.......] File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources.py", line 576, in resolve raise DistributionNotFound(req) DistributionNotFound: xattr>=0.4 This used to happen when building in Koji, too, but we worked around it by switching the whole dependency checking off by "rm requirements.txt". So, it's just the development trees, where it's easy to work around by editing requirements.txt. However, it's somewhat unobvious and it requires to carry a modded requirements.txt in your work tree. Because of that I submitted patches with "-xattr>=0.4" to Gerrit a few times. The root cause is the application wants a package called "xattr" and we provide one called "pyxattr". Thus, "xattr" is not found (any version). Note that our xattr code itself is fine (or almost, see bug 732692), the problem is in Python dependencies only. An easy workaround is this: [root@guren pyxattr.rawhide]# ln -s ./pyxattr-0.5.1-py2.7.egg-info /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/xattr-0.5.1-py2.7.egg-info But, doing that in an RPM spec is a little challenging and causes some weirdest effects. For example, a bogus complaint about file conflicts from rpm -U. So, I propose we carry a downstream patch, which adds a fake egg with the name "xattr". Please see attached. In case anyone ever wants to package python-xattr, it's not going to conflict either as Python package or Fedora package, because file paths are different and version is different.
Please see bug 1020449 for xattr>=4.0 striking in our RDO product.
Your workaround looks sensible. I'm not actively using Python and eggs, but if you think it will not conflict with python-xattr (when available in Fedora) it would be probably the easiest way. Do you want me to apply this patch or you think there could be some other issues in the future and you would like to become a package co-maintainer?
I'm fine taking on co-maintainer. About this patch, I sent a mail to Russell Bryant, who, IIRC, was involved into packaging of python-xattr. He comes back from vacation on June 2nd. If he does not object, I think we're good to take this patch as I proposed.
So why not spend the effort to just provide the real python-xattr package instead of this work around? It seems that both are just packaging work, right?
This can hit Bodhi tomorrow if we want and packaging python-xattr is going to take months.
*** Bug 1178227 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle. Changing version to '22'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22
Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.