bugzilla and python2-virtualenv

[Martín Marqués]

Hi,

I'm trying to file a bug report in bugzilla.redhat.com and seem to be
having a hard time finding the package in question.

For some reason, even though the package exists in fc30, the bugzilla
interface doesn't have python2-virtualenv in it's database and so I can't
file the bug report.

FYI, it seems that down the road between fc28 and fc30 (don't have an fc29
handy to test this) the python2-virtualenv package doesn't come with
`/usr/bin/virtualenv`. Is there a reason for the missing binary?

And in any case, how is it that bugzilla doesn't list a package that is
clearly in the fc30 release?

# rpm -qa | grep python2-virtualenv
python2-virtualenv-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch

Kind regards,

[Todd Zullinger]

Hi,

Martín Marqués wrote:
> I'm trying to file a bug report in bugzilla.redhat.com and seem to be
> having a hard time finding the package in question.
>
> For some reason, even though the package exists in fc30, the bugzilla
> interface doesn't have python2-virtualenv in it's database and so I can't
> file the bug report.
>
> FYI, it seems that down the road between fc28 and fc30 (don't have an fc29
> handy to test this) the python2-virtualenv package doesn't come with
> `/usr/bin/virtualenv`. Is there a reason for the missing binary?
>
> And in any case, how is it that bugzilla doesn't list a package that is
> clearly in the fc30 release?
>
> # rpm -qa | grep python2-virtualenv
> python2-virtualenv-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch

The bugzilla component is the source rpm, not any of the
multiple binary packages built from it.  In this case, it's
python-virtualenv.  You can get the source rpm for a given
package via 'rpm -qi <package>' or 'dnf info <package>'.

[stan]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 19:00:32 -0300
Martín Marqués  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to file a bug report in bugzilla.redhat.com and seem to be
> having a hard time finding the package in question.
>
> For some reason, even though the package exists in fc30, the bugzilla
> interface doesn't have python2-virtualenv in it's database and so I
> can't file the bug report.
>
> FYI, it seems that down the road between fc28 and fc30 (don't have an
> fc29 handy to test this) the python2-virtualenv package doesn't come
> with `/usr/bin/virtualenv`. Is there a reason for the missing binary?

I can't answer the question about why /usr/bin/virtualenv isn't present
in the python2 package, but it might have to do with the deprecation of
python2 in fc30, and drop from fc31 to the extent possible (end of
python2 maintenance is in 2020).  It might only be in the python3
package.
> And in any case, how is it that bugzilla doesn't list a package that
> is clearly in the fc30 release?
>
> # rpm -qa | grep python2-virtualenv
> python2-virtualenv-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch

The src.rpm is python-virtualenv, and it creates

python-virtualenv-doc-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch.rpm
    python2-virtualenv-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch.rpm
    python2-virtualenv-python26-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch.rpm
    python3-virtualenv-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch.rpm
    python3-virtualenv-python26-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch.rpm

So you should file the bugzilla against python-virtualenv.

[Gordon Messmer]

On 6/2/19 3:00 PM, Martín Marqués wrote:
> FYI, it seems that down the road between fc28 and fc30 (don't have an 
> fc29 handy to test this) the python2-virtualenv package doesn't come 
> with `/usr/bin/virtualenv`. Is there a reason for the missing binary?

From the package changelog:
* Wed Aug 15 2018 Miro Hrončok  - 16.0.0-5
- Only have one /usr/bin/virtualenv (#1599422)
- Provide "virtualenv" (#1502670)

/usr/bin/virtualenv is now provided by "python3-virtualenv".  If you 
install that package, you should be able to use the -p argument to 
specify a python, or (IIRC) you can use "python2 -m virtualenv DIR".

If you've been waiting until the last minute to port your code to 
python3, this is it.  This *is* the last minute.  :)