The PySide RPM needs to include egg-info in the installed package to be discoverable when checking requirements for tools like yubikey-neo-manager. The same issue occurred on Arch until they fixed the PySide package: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/47055 Until this is fixed, applications like yubikey-neo-manager return errors: pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'PySide' distribution was not found and is required by yubikey-neo-manager
Any news about this? The package yubikey-neo-manager is not (yet) in official repository (only copr with previous version [1]), but I would like to add it there. Any chance to get update in some near future? [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/yubikey-neo-manager/
As an aside, I'd strongly encourage consumers to consider using PyQt5/python-qt5 instead of PySide. (it has more active downstream maintainance)
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #2) > As an aside, I'd strongly encourage consumers to consider using > PyQt5/python-qt5 instead of PySide. (it has more active downstream > maintainance) On the other hand the "QT company" started backing pyside officially and they are paying a few full-time developers (though that is for pyside2).
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #2) > As an aside, I'd strongly encourage consumers to consider using > PyQt5/python-qt5 instead of PySide. Fine, but unfortunately other packages depend on PySide. You reckon that "consumers" should re-write all that stuff?
The fedora package appears to be based on https://download.qt-project.org/official_releases/pyside/ where no setup.py is available. The related pypi package contains setup.py. It also contains an identical copy of the pyside sources. by basing the fedora package on it, the egg-info would be automatically available. https://pypi.python.org/packages/b4/7b/2fc9d9e5c651c1550362d87bc4ab4cfe5368b312c1eaf477b5a4be708abd/PySide-1.2.2.tar.gz#md5=c45bc400c8a86d6b35f34c29e379e44d Note that it's official Fedora policy to always have an egg info available (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs).
Created attachment 1173174 [details] Proposed patch for the spec file
Created attachment 1173176 [details] Additional source file (PKG-INFO) This is the PKG-INFO file from the PySide package from PyPi: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PySide/1.2.2, more precisely https://pypi.python.org/packages/b4/7b/2fc9d9e5c651c1550362d87bc4ab4cfe5368b312c1eaf477b5a4be708abd/PySide-1.2.2.tar.gz#md5=c45bc400c8a86d6b35f34c29e379e44d Together with the patch from the previous comment, a python-pyside RPM with suitable egg-info can be built which solves the problem. I first investigated the option of building python-pyside from the PyPi package directly. But I gave up that plan. The pypi PySide package consists of what would be shiboken-libs, shiboken, shiboken-devel, python-pyside, python-pyside-devel, and pyside-tools under Fedora, and doesn't make it easy to be split up in subpackages. Also, the layout of installed files doesn't match the Fedora conventions well, so that many files need to be moved around manually. Maybe the Fedora packages should be rebased on this upstream source in a later release. But that I'll leave to the Fedora package owner. It's much simpler and less intrusive to just add the PKG-INFO (and a few more egg info items) from the PyPi package to the Fedora package. While this way of providing the "egg-info" may not be perfectly clean, it will solve the reported problem, and the egg-info matches the built package well.
created a binary package under https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mwilck/python/fedora-22-x86_64/
Would you be willing to help being a pkg maintainer here? (That's the primary reason I'd been recommending using something else in comment #2 , lack of active primary fedora package maintainer)
I feel honoured by the proposal :-) I guess I need to understand the requirements for being a package maintainer. I am not a PySide or Qt expert. I just happened to stumble upon this problem and find a workaround.
Generally, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers but that path assumes you're submitting a new package, not co-maintaining an existing one, which is specifically mentioned here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer I'd be happy to sponsor you into the packager group if you're interested.
I can confirm that Martin's changes are ok (though I tweaked the change a bit, e.g. using the %{SOURCE1} macro). Martin: If you like (and this is ok with Rex Dieter) I can also push this forward. Will apply for co-maintainership in that case (even though my time limitations mentioned in bug 1352326 are still in effect).
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 25 development cycle. Changing version to '25'.
This is actually a new feature, so moving to rawhide. I'm using this patch on F25 for quite some time and will push it once shiboken's builds are fixed (finally): bug 1424433.
Any update?
(In reply to Zuzana Svetlikova from comment #15) > Any update? I just pushed a change based on Martin's proposal but I'd like to wait a few days with the build as I was able to fix the shiboken build problems and I think I might be able to get a Python 3 package as well... If you need a real build/Fedora update sooner please let me know.
I'd just like to have functional yubikey-neo-manager, as was mentioned before. I guess it can wait few more days. Thanks
F27 has egg-info, forgot to close this bug.