There is no python3 version of websockify, trying to use websockify as a library from a Python3 module is not possible due to this variant of the package missing.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 21 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 21. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '21'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 21 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 21 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-12-01. Fedora 21 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates.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.
This bug is still valid in Fedora 23
Upstream, this software supports Python 3. Please provide a Python 3 package for Fedora. According to the Python packaging guidelines [0], software must be packaged for Python 3 if upstream supports it. The guidelines give detailed information on how to do this, and even provide an example spec file [1]. The current best practice is to provide subpackages for the two Python versions (called "Common SRPM" in the guidelines). Alternatively, if nothing depends on your Python2 package, you can just switch to Python 3 entirely. It's ok to do this in Rawhide only, however, it would be greatly appreciated if you could push it to Fedora 24 as well. If anything is unclear, or if you need any kind of assistance with the porting, you can ask on IRC (#fedora-python on Freenode), or reply here. We'll be happy to help! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
Hello Pádraig, Do you need any help adding Python 3 support to the RPM? If you need more instructions, a [guide] for porting Python-based RPMs is available. [guide] http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html
Created attachment 1194115 [details] Spec file patch to provide Python 3 subpackage The attached spec file contains - Python 3 subpackage, - doc subpackage, - correction in changelog because the original spec file contains this error: $ rpmlint python-websockify.spec python-websockify.spec: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Sep 10 2013 Nikola Đipanov <ndipanov> - 0.5.1-1 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Hi Jan! I've noticed that you have placed the binary only in the Python 3 submodule. However, the Python guidelines specify that you should only package the Python 2 binary in the Python 2 submodule. (Unless the binaries differ in functionality, which I believe they don't in this case.) To make sure that only the Python 2 binary is placed in /usr/bin, I refer you to the %install section of this type of package on Python RPM Porting Guide: http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.io/en/latest/application-modules.html#install In addition, the man page should always be in the package(s) that contain binaries. Unlike docs, man pages don't take much space at all. Therefore in this case the man page should be in the Python 2 subpackage as well.
Now I'll have to eat a big piece of humble pie, because I was completely wrong. In cases where only one binary is being packaged, it should indeed be the one for Python 3! I apologise Jan! Nevertheless, please take a look at the link to the Python RPM Porting Guide, as the %install section should still be amended.
Created attachment 1194460 [details] Updated spec file Hi Tomáš, thanks for your review. I made the correction related to man pages in the attached file. May I ask you to review the new spec file?
Hi Jan! The man pages are now correct! However, the %install section still needs to be amended so that we can be sure that only the Python 3 binary remains and the Python 2 binary is deleted: Here's the relevant section of the Python RPM Porting guide: http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.io/en/latest/application-modules.html#install
Created attachment 1195327 [details] Spec file patch to provide Python 3 subpackage Hi Tomáš, thanks for your review. I have made the adjustment that I forgot to include last time.
Looks good to me, Jan, thank you!
Hi Pádraig, as this is a bit of a time sensitive issue, we would really appreciate if you could take a look at the patch as soon as possible. If you are time constrained right now, I hope you won't mind if we do the review and push the changes ourselves in case you are unable. Thank you!
> If you are time constrained right now, I hope you won't mind if we do the > review and push the changes ourselves in case you are unable. Please go ahead.