Description of problem: Currently the python-virtualenv package provides the following executables: * /usr/bin/py3-virtualenv * /usr/bin/virtualenv * /usr/bin/virtualenv-2.7 * /usr/bin/virtualenv-3.5 According to the guidelines, it should also provide: * /usr/bin/virtualenv-2 * /usr/bin/virtualenv-3 > If executables are to be shipped for both python 2 and python 3: > * Both python 2 and python 3 variants must provide symlinks with a '-X' and > '-X.Y' suffix (python runtime major version, or python runtime major.minor > version), unless upstream already provides appropriately versioned > executables without the dash. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming Please add this to Fedora >= 24, as it shouldn't break anything and would help people writing scripts. (and me, trying to package pew for Fedora)
Created attachment 1210800 [details] Add the /usr/bin/virtualenv-$MAJOR executables
Submitted https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5178e14a4c for testing.
python-virtualenv-15.0.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5178e14a4c
python-virtualenv-15.0.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-619f532328
python-virtualenv-15.0.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-virtualenv-15.0.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Noticed that the symlinks are createt/removed in %post/%postun sections. Wouldn't it be better to include them in the %files section?
(In reply to Rolf Fokkens from comment #7) > Noticed that the symlinks are createt/removed in %post/%postun sections. > Wouldn't it be better to include them in the %files section? I agree, and that's why the patch I had submitted was doing just that. Doing the symlinks in %post/%postun scriptlets means RPM doesn't know about them: $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/virtualenv-3 file /usr/bin/virtualenv-3 is not owned by any package And in general, scriptlets are much more fragile than just installing files normally.