Bug 1835084 - F33FailsToInstall: python3-pyghmi
Summary: F33FailsToInstall: python3-pyghmi
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: python-pyghmi
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dmitry Tantsur
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1768334
Blocks: F33FailsToInstall
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-05-13 05:18 UTC by Igor Raits
Modified: 2020-05-29 14:39 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-05-29 14:39:12 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Igor Raits 2020-05-13 05:18:09 UTC
Hello,

Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (ignatenkobrain).

Your package (python-pyghmi) Fails To Install in Fedora 33:

can't install python3-pyghmi:
  - nothing provides pyhton3-dateutil >= 2.8.1 needed by python3-pyghmi-1.5.14-1.fc33.noarch
  - nothing provides pyhton3-six >= 1.10.0 needed by python3-pyghmi-1.5.14-1.fc33.noarch
  - nothing provides python3.8dist(python-dateutil) >= 2.8.1 needed by python3-pyghmi-1.5.14-1.fc33.noarch
  
If you don't react accordingly to the policy for FTBFS/FTI bugs (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/), your package may be orphaned in 8+ weeks.

P.S. The data was generated solely from koji buildroot, so it might be newer than the latest compose or the content on mirrors.

P.P.S. If this bug has been reported in the middle of upgrading multiple dependent packages, please consider using side tags: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/rawhide-gating/multi-builds/

Thanks!

Comment 3 Dmitry Tantsur 2020-05-25 16:18:17 UTC
Hi Igor! Both dateutil and six are quite foundational packages in the python world. Have they been removed or is it just a temporary glitch?

Comment 4 Igor Raits 2020-05-25 16:22:48 UTC
The dateutil in Fedora is still 2.8.0, not 2.8.1.

The six one I'm not sure.

Comment 5 Dmitry Tantsur 2020-05-25 16:29:45 UTC
2.8.1 was released half a year ago, it's strange we don't have it. I suspect we may be fine with 2.8.0, but I cannot be 100% sure.

Six should be in rawhide: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-six, so I consider it a temporary condition.

Comment 6 Dmitry Tantsur 2020-05-26 10:15:46 UTC
The problems have already been fixed in 1.5.14-2 in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyghmi/c/425fc8ec9cb5a5a70472e34b3e3ad2cc88d66686?branch=master

Comment 7 Yatin Karel 2020-05-26 10:40:02 UTC
(In reply to Dmitry Tantsur from comment #6)
> The problems have already been fixed in 1.5.14-2 in
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyghmi/c/
> 425fc8ec9cb5a5a70472e34b3e3ad2cc88d66686?branch=master

@dtabtsyr Actually that patch will not work in fedora as auto dependency generator is used and deps defined in requirements.txt are picked where minimal is set to 2.8.1, so either dateutil in rawhide needs to be build to 2.8.1 or sed -i 's/python-dateutil.*/python-dateutil>=2.6.1/' requirements.txt in %prep, for CentOS8 in RDO we did it like https://github.com/rdo-common/python-pyghmi/commit/c9495f4 with dependency generator

Comment 8 Dmitry Tantsur 2020-05-26 12:39:45 UTC
Eeehhm, why do we mix manual and automatic dependencies? Oo

Anyway, I've applied your suggestion and pushed 1.5.14-4. I'm not sure if I should build it right now given the 3.9 rebuild. Igor, could you advise?

Comment 9 Igor Raits 2020-05-26 12:46:54 UTC
(In reply to Dmitry Tantsur from comment #8)
> Eeehhm, why do we mix manual and automatic dependencies? Oo

Feel free to remove manual ones :)

> Anyway, I've applied your suggestion and pushed 1.5.14-4. I'm not sure if I
> should build it right now given the 3.9 rebuild. Igor, could you advise?

Build it in f33-python (fedpkg build --target f33-python).

Comment 10 Dmitry Tantsur 2020-05-26 12:55:39 UTC
done https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45009096

Comment 11 Igor Raits 2020-05-29 14:39:12 UTC
Hello,

Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (ignatenkobrain).

All subpackages of a package agaisnt which this bug was filled are now installable or removed from Fedora 33.

Thanks for taking care of it!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.