The standard test task doesn't work. Tox-venv can be used but it is more of an acceptance test than a unit test (it checks by installing a bunch of venv's from pypi which seems prone to transient failures in general). I'm willing to take advice on how to handle it. The current spec omits the %check section which I recognize is not ideal. SPEC file: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01143651-pipx/pipx.spec SRPM file: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01143651-pipx/pipx-0.15.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
Looks like LICENSE contains both the MIT and the 3-Clause-BSD license. -License: MIT +License: MIT and BSD rpmlint complains a lot: pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) applicatiosn -> applications, application, supplication pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual pipx.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.14.1.2-1 ['0.15.1.2-1.fc32', '0.15.1.2-1'] pipx.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/.__init__.py.swp pipx.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/.main.py.swp pipx.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/main.py /usr/bin/env python3 pipx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pipx.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/venv_metadata_inspector.py /usr/bin/env python3 pipx.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/venv_metadata_inspector.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pipx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipx pipx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) applicatiosn -> applications, application, supplication pipx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual pipx.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %check pipx.src:38: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 10 warnings. Regarding tests: looks like they are excluded from the pypi-tarball. All I can think of is switching Source0 for the github tarball. more reviewing tomorrow ;-)
Fixed several of the warnings and both of the errors. Thanks for the feedback! In the meantime, there was a new upstream release: SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01172358-pipx/pipx.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01172358-pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm I removed the check section - this requires tox-venv and zipp, neither of which are in rawhide now (though zipp is in 31, not sure what happened there)
getting close! ;-) regarding the issue about duplicate files: i don't think you need to %attr() the file if you chmod'ded it in %build. even if, these files aren't supposed to be executed directly anyways, no? > BuildRequires: python3dist(tox) superfluous without %check? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/pipx/main.py See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/t/x/1790241-pipx/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/pipx(to, defaulting, Failed, C, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx-0.15.1.3-py3.8.egg-info(to, defaulting, Failed, C, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/pipx/__pycache__(to, defaulting, Failed, C, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/commands(to, defaulting, Failed, C, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/pipx/commands/__pycache__(to, defaulting, Failed, C, set, locale,), /usr/share/doc/pipx(to, defaulting, Failed, C, set, locale,), /usr/share/licenses/pipx(to, defaulting, Failed, C, set, locale,) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual pipx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipx pipx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual pipx.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pipx <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> pipx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipx 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01aa3a9549ea4ce8428ccb1b770d5fd428159f17635cad208effc17b42ccb72e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01aa3a9549ea4ce8428ccb1b770d5fd428159f17635cad208effc17b42ccb72e Requires -------- pipx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.8dist(argcomplete) >= 1.9.4 with python3.8dist(argcomplete) < 2) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(setuptools) python3.8dist(userpath) Provides -------- pipx: pipx python3.8dist(pipx) python3dist(pipx)
Revised. I subbed out the shebang lines. I removed the tox dep as suggested. SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01176683-pipx/pipx.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01176683-pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
Ping? The userpath/adduserpath dependency question is still pending (seehttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794242); I'm not sure pipx is worth complicating the upgrade path from f31 to f32 (users in f31 already have pipsi available which does mostly the same thing, but is currently unmaintained). I'm OK with just pushing this into f32 and leaving pipx out of f31 as I'm not sure how to best handle that dependency gracefully between releases. If there's a clean way do it just from within pipx I'm happy to do so; it's just a bit beyond my RPM-fu at the mmoment.
sorry for the delay! the package looks good, and i'd like to approve it, but my bugzilla account is buggered. I can't set review+. I've opened an issue, but looks like not much is happening over the weekend. -> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8583
I understand, and that's totally fair. Thanks!
Regarding userpath/adduserpath: Why not use %if? %if 0%{?fedora} < 32` # RHBZ#1794242 BuildRequires: python3dist(adduserpath) %else BuildRequires: python3dist(userpath) %endif
I tried exactly that. However: python3-adduserpath provides: % rpm -q --provides python3-adduserpath python-adduserpath = 0.4.0-7.fc31 python3-adduserpath = 0.4.0-7.fc31 python3.7dist(adduserpath) = 0.4 python3dist(adduserpath) = 0.4 Meanwhile pipx auto-requires the following: rovides: pipx = 0.15.1.3-1.fc31 python3.7dist(pipx) = 0.15.1.3 python3dist(pipx) = 0.15.1.3 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.7 python3.7dist(argcomplete) >= 1.9.4 python3.7dist(argcomplete) < 2 python3.7dist(setuptools) python3.7dist(userpath) (And so python3-adduserpath does not satisfy the requirements on f31 without editing) And the autorequires for pipx are looking for just "userpath" (since that's the name of the module that the package provides. I believe that means that: 1) the forthcoming python3-userpath module (in f32) would need have to prrovide python3dist(adduserpath) and 2) python3-userpath would have to also obsolete python3-adduserpath. Even in that case, we may have to force pipx's dependency list, which seems to be awfully throwaway work that would just need to be undone in the next release. If there's a cleaner way to do it, I'm open to it; I'm new to some of the complexities of packaging; this certainly seems to be a bit of an edge case.
I expected you've tried that. The real fix is definitely in (add)userpath. I'd like to approve the package as it is now, which works on fc32, and let you (optionally) sort out fc30/31 with the userpath maintainers afterwards, if that's fine by you. again, sorry for the delay; hopefully the ticket I opened on fedora-infra gets fixed tomorrow or I'll follow up about it with someone.
Hello o/ I'm both a provenpackager and packager sponsor, so if the infra issue isn't fixed soon-ish, I'll be able to help. Regardless, Tobias, you will need to set yourself as the bug assignee as well, otherwise the fedora-review+ flag will not "count" when requesting the package repository. (By the way, I think it might also be possible that this bug isn't correctly set up as a package review bug since it was originally opened against the fedora-review package instead of starting with the fedora-review bug template. In that case, I'd recommend opening a new ticket correctly and continuing the process there.)
While I'm here, I could also give some feedback on the packaging itself, if you want. I see some small issues (and a few things that are superfluous or needlessly complex).
I'm definitely interested in feedback. The point of all this is to improve my packaging skills, after all. :) If there's a better way to do things, or opportunities to simplify, I'd love to hear about them. Thanks!
Sure, no problem. 1) You don't need to use a separate %{srcname} definition if you're only going to use it for %{name}. You can just drop the definition of srcname and use "Name: pipx" directly, and then replace usage of "%{srcname}" with the standard macro for "%{name}". 2) If the package has code licensed both under MIT and BSD licenses, then the License tag should be "MIT and BSD", not "MIT or BSD". The "or" case is only applicable for dual-licensed code. 3) %package %{srcname} is redundant, since it expands to %package pipx, which is already the main package. Just drop the separate %package line and Summary. 4) In that case, you also don't need to deduplicate the %description, since there's only one package. 5) %autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version} is redundant, because the default value for the -n flag is "%{name}-%{version}". You can just use plain "%autosetup". 6) %files %{srcname} - again, this is redundant. Just use %files, since pipx is the "main" package anyway. That means the comment above %files can go too :) 7) The "standard" way to list python modules in %files would be like this, so you don't accidentally include too much (though your way should work as well): %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/ %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/ Last question: Is the "pipx" python module only used internally, or is it expected to be imported by third-party packages? If the latter is the case, you might want to split it off into a separate "%package -n python3-%{name}" instead, and Require it from the main pipx package. If its only used internally, it's fine to include it in the main pipx package.
I'm back in business! Fabio's points are good. I don't think any of them is a blocker right now, except (2); please update the license tag.
OK - thanks, Tobias, for getting your permissions sorted out. Thanks, Fabio for looking this over. I've updated the spec per your recommendations to declutter. I copied a bunch of things in there initially; my goal is to learn packaging by doing and this is helping! On point 2, the license is just MIT. I checked. I'm not sure where the "or" came from. I changed the %files section but just used %name since it's the same. As far as I know it's primarily used as the utility. SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01207365-pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01207365-pipx/pipx.spec
> On point 2, the license is just MIT. I checked. I'm not sure where the "or" came from. looking at https://github.com/pipxproject/pipx/blob/master/LICENSE, lines 1 to 21 are (some form of) the MIT license, lines 23 to 54 are the 3-Clause-BSD. the comment above %files only makes sense for python3-* packages; maybe remove it.
I see what you mean about the LICENSE file. I was trusting the first line but there's more to the story, as it were. I also deleted the stray comment. SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01207914-pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01207914-pipx/pipx.spec
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/t/1790241-pipx/licensecheck.txt [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/pipx(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx-0.15.1.3-py3.8.egg-info(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/pipx/__pycache__(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pipx/commands(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/pipx/commands/__pycache__(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C), /usr/share/doc/pipx(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C), /usr/share/licenses/pipx(locale,, Failed, to, set, defaulting, C) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual pipx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipx pipx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.utf8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.utf8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). pipx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenvs -> virtual pipx.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pipx <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> pipx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pipx 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01aa3a9549ea4ce8428ccb1b770d5fd428159f17635cad208effc17b42ccb72e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01aa3a9549ea4ce8428ccb1b770d5fd428159f17635cad208effc17b42ccb72e Requires -------- pipx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.8dist(argcomplete) < 2 with python3.8dist(argcomplete) >= 1.9.4) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(setuptools) python3.8dist(userpath) Provides -------- pipx: pipx python-pipx python3.8dist(pipx) python3dist(pipx) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1790241 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Perl, C/C++, PHP, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pipx