Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.

Bug 2048085

Summary:	etckeeper-brz provides python3dist(brz-etckeeper) = 0, etckeeper-dnf provides python3dist(dnf-etckeeper) = 0
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Miro Hrončok <mhroncok>
Component:	etckeeper	Assignee:	Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	thomas.moschny
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-01-31 20:49:12 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	2048077

Description Miro Hrončok 2022-01-29 12:13:42 UTC

The package etckeeper-brz has the following automatic provide:

  python3dist(brz-etckeeper) = 0

The package etckeeper-dnf has the following automatic provide:

  python3dist(dnf-etckeeper) = 0

It appears that the actual package version was lost during the packaging process. 

In most cases, this is caused by using a Source that misses version information, e.g. A GitHub tarball when the project uses setuptools_scm or pbr. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi

This bugzilla was created in a batch, so it does not have information about the exact cause for this package. If you need help figuring out why this happens in this particular package, feel free to ask.

Comment 1 Thomas Moschny 2022-01-31 08:42:56 UTC

Not sure what to do here. Both are more or less single-file plugins for etckeeper, and not really standalone packages.

While dnf-etckeeper at least comes with etckeeper, and thus one could simply assign it the same version number [1], brz-etckeeper only exists as a patch with no real upstream...

[1] although I'd have to figure out how to do that technically first

Comment 2 Miro Hrončok 2022-01-31 09:45:39 UTC

Technically, the version is stored in /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/dnf_etckeeper-0.0.0-py3.10.egg-info

Metadata-Version: 1.0
Name: dnf-etckeeper
Version: 0.0.0
Summary: UNKNOWN
Home-page: UNKNOWN
Author: UNKNOWN
Author-email: UNKNOWN
License: UNKNOWN
Description: UNKNOWN
Platform: UNKNOWN



I believe the culprit is that the package uses etckeeper-brz/__init__.py and  etckeeper-dnf/etckeeper.py as setup.py and neither has any version information.


If the metadata is not used by any part of etckeeper, I suggest simply rm'ing both egg-infos in %install with the reference to this bugzilla.

Comment 3 Thomas Moschny 2022-01-31 10:47:25 UTC

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> If the metadata is not used by any part of etckeeper, I suggest simply
> rm'ing both egg-infos in %install with the reference to this bugzilla.

brz-etckeeper is actually a breezy plugin and dnf-etckeeper a dnf plugin. Probably both do not care about the version number. Need to check that.

Comment 4 Thomas Moschny 2022-01-31 20:49:12 UTC

Fixed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/etckeeper/c/8e0916c332740c23397a60f530bf9b797acca1a0?branch=rawhide

Comment 5 Miro Hrončok 2022-01-31 23:49:44 UTC

Thanks!