In line with the Mass Python 2 Package Removal [0], the following (sub)packages of libdnet were marked for removal: * python2-libdnet According to our query, those (sub)packages only provide a Python 2 importable module. If this is not true, please tell us why, so we can fix our query. Please remove them from your package. As said in the change document, if there is no objection in a week, we will remove the package(s) as soon as we get to it. This change might not match your packaging style, so we'd prefer if you did the change. If you need more time, please let us know here. We hope this doesn't come to you as a surprise. If you want to know our motivation for this, please read the change document [0]. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal
I've removed python subpackage now (commit 1226bedad08709fa8ee233d0e8d7cc865f259cea). However, the code is pretty unmaintained since years and I wonder if we should reach out to the developer and ask him if he is still interested in this project or not. Completely removing the libdnet package seems to be a bad idea at the moment, since we still have some other packages depending on it (repoquery in F27): # dnf repoquery --whatrequires libdnet ArpON-0:3.0-2.fc25 daq-modules-0:2.0.6-4.fc27 firewalk-0:5.0-18.fc27 labrea-0:2.5.1-15.fc26 open-vm-tools-0:10.1.10-3.fc27 <--- side question: why do i see this duplicate!? open-vm-tools-0:10.3.0-4.fc27 open-vm-tools-test-0:10.3.0-4.fc27 scanssh-0:2.1.1-12.fc27 tcpreplay-0:4.2.5-3.fc27 unicornscan-0:0.4.7-15.fc27 I'm the maintainer of scanssh (that's the reason why I brought in libdnet back in 2005) and I'd not like to see this package being removed. Opinions?
> side question: why do i see this duplicate!? It may be that one version is int he repo and one installed on your machine. or one in the fedora repo and one in updates. It just happens sometimes. > Completely removing the libdnet package seems to be a bad idea at the moment I'd reach to the maintainers of dependent packages and ask them. I lack any knowledge about libdnet (except for the request made trough this bugzilla). I'm keeping this open so you can keep it as a reminder that you want to do something, but feel free to close at any time (my request was fulfilled, thanks).
> side question: why do i see this duplicate!? Here I see: $ dnf repoquery --whatrequires libdnet|grep open-vm-too open-vm-tools-0:10.3.0-4.fc29.i686 open-vm-tools-0:10.3.0-4.fc29.x86_64 open-vm-tools-test-0:10.3.0-4.fc29.x86_64 which means that open-vm-tools is blessed to be multilib (however that is officially called). You seem to be using an older dnf, so that's probably why the format string is a bit different.
Zbigniew, I'm running this on some VM which is still i686. And open-vm-tools 0.10.1 and 0.10.3 are both i686. But never mind, I know this happens... I'll reach out to the other maintainers and ask them if/how we can go further and also to the upstream maintainer of libdnet if he abandoned the project...
I've rebuilt libdnet with the currently much newer version from boundary (see github) and this builds fine with Python 3 now. Therefore I'll close this BZ now.