Fedora's pyxattr package packages this upstream: http://pyxattr.sourceforge.net/ For its image caching support (which is disabled by default), glance requires this version: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xattr The only complication is that our pyxattr includes these lines: #python-xattr name was used in DAG repository Provides: python-xattr = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: python-xattr <= %{version}-%{release}
I think we can safely remove those lines - DAG's repository was merged into rpmfusion in 2005 and doesn't provide that package for Fedora 10+ anymore. Nevertheless there would be still a problem to provide xattr (pypi) as python-xattr. I didn't make a test, but that new package could try to replace pyxattr (has higher version number) in case of the systems that are not updated to pyxattr without mentioned lines. But maybe there is some clever solution which allows to mitigate that problem.
Would this be an acceptable approach? 1) Update pyxattr to remove the Provides/Obsoletes lines for python-xattr. This would be in version X of the pyxattr package. 2) Create a new package, python-xattr, which Conflicts with pyxattr <= X.
Haven't tested that solution, but seems logical for me. > 2) Create a new package, python-xattr, which Conflicts with pyxattr <= X. Did you mean "pyxattr < X"?
The question is whether, given that pyxattr is already installed, yum's depsolver will take a transaction which includes python-xattr and resolve that to include latest pyxattr. We're assuming it will look at latest python-xattr, see the Conflicts and resolve those by updating pyxattr. One thing that might happen is that 'yum install python-xattr', or 'yum install foo' where foo has 'Requires: python-xattr', would not result in newer python-xattr being installed because older pyxattr is already installed. That's not a big problem, though, we would just make sure that glance has 'Requires: python-xattr >= 0.6.2' So, yes - I think it'll work too :)
(In reply to comment #3) > Haven't tested that solution, but seems logical for me. > > > 2) Create a new package, python-xattr, which Conflicts with pyxattr <= X. > > Did you mean "pyxattr < X"? Yes. :-)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll proceed down this path as time permits.
I have a proposed python-xattr ready to submit for review, pending the resolution of bug 781838. http://fedorapeople.org/~russellb/python-xattr/
Thanks to a tip from pbrady, I took a look at this issue from a different angle today. All of what we have discussed here will no longer be necessary if this patch goes in: https://review.openstack.org/#change,3414
That patch has gone into glance, so at least as of Essex, glance will work with the version of pyxattr already in Fedora.