https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #101 from Suvayu ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #99)
>
> In particular:
> https://github.com/negativo17/bitcoin-core/commit/
> b2763c75931fbac5eebd4838ae549e642c2885bd
Looks good +1
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #100 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
Will be good to download fresh srpm. I build f34.rpm for myself (periodically)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #99 from Simone Caronni ---
Hey, thanks for all the help, but I think I solved it while making it an
offline process for mock/koji.
All changes that I will post for review are here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #98 from Suvayu ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #96)
> (In reply to Suvayu from comment #92)
> > You can then verify with only this key.
>
> ...and it would require editing the asc file to remove all other signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #97 from Suvayu ---
I think you can use the GH public API:
https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases
Something like the following in a script should work; I'm using curl and python
(no build dependencies)
$ curl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #96 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Suvayu from comment #92)
> You can then verify with only this key.
...and it would require editing the asc file to remove all other signatures or
gpgv will complain anyway.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #95 from Simone Caronni ---
Well, on second thought this key might as well be revoked after a release and
there is no .git information in the release tarball to derive it from, so
anyway would need a prior script to execute before
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #94 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Suvayu from comment #92)
> 2. I suggest you choose the person who signed and tagged the release.
Very good idea! Thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #93 from Suvayu ---
(In reply to Suvayu from comment #92)
> $ cd bitcoin.git
should be `$ cd bitcoin`
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #92 from Suvayu ---
Hi Simone,
Here's my suggestion:
1. the instructions on bitcoincore.org say "7. It is recommended that you
choose a few individuals from this list who you find trustworthy and import
their keys ..."
2. I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #91 from Simone Caronni ---
Basically verification requires at least one signature to be valid.
I will pipe the output of a script like the one above and just grep for at
least one occurrence of "^gpgv: Good signature from".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #90 from Simone Caronni ---
Any idea how to solve it?
- Editing SHA256SUM.asc to remove signatures with revoked keys involves prior
manual work and then does not match the one included in the release folder.
- Just checking all
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #89 from Simone Caronni ---
So here's the issue with the signature.
1- The tarball contains a file with all the PGP keys used to sign SHA256SUM
(contrib/builder-keys/keys.txt).
2- The signatures are all in SHA256SUM.asc.
3- The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #88 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Suvayu from comment #87)
> (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #86)
> > Well not on bitcoin.org, but is live on bitcoincore.org:
> > https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/
>
> I believe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #87 from Suvayu ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #86)
> Well not on bitcoin.org, but is live on bitcoincore.org:
> https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/
I believe bitcoincore.org is the canonical place maintained by
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #86 from Simone Caronni ---
Well not on bitcoin.org, but is live on bitcoincore.org:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #85 from Simone Caronni ---
Well, it's more complicated than it seems:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/builder-keys
I need to download all of those keys in one GPG keyring and then verify the
signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #84 from Simone Caronni ---
Sorry had some real life tasks that I had to deal with. Posting updated
packages later today.
Bitcoin release 22 (versioning change) has also a different tarball signature
verification procedure, so I'm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #83 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
bitcoin-22.0 released
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #82 from Simone Caronni ---
Will respond and continue during the week.
Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #81 from Warren Togami ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #77)
> Regarding bitcoin.service:
>
> Restart=on-failure
> TimeoutStopSec=120
> TimeoutStartSec=60
> StartLimitInterval=240
> StartLimitBurst=5
>
> There exists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #80 from Warren Togami ---
> E.g. I run bitcoind at one host (to store this huge database inplace) and use
> bitcoin-cli in another hosts (without any bitcoin service).
OK good point.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #79 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #75)
> Is there a benefit to 'utils' being a subpackage separate from `bitcoind`?
> Many expect -cli to exist in order to manually send commands to their
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #78 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #74)
> * server vs core subpackage kind of bother me because while you don't use
> bitcoind and bitcoin-qt simultaneously they are functionally identical.
No.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #77 from Warren Togami ---
Regarding bitcoin.service:
Restart=on-failure
TimeoutStopSec=120
TimeoutStartSec=60
StartLimitInterval=240
StartLimitBurst=5
There exists a corner case where "stop" can take significantly more time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #76 from Warren Togami ---
The test suite is *excessively slow*. IMO we should not run these extensive
tests during these builds. Upstream official builds do not. We developers
should instead run these tests on the target
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #75 from Warren Togami ---
Is there a benefit to 'utils' being a subpackage separate from `bitcoind`? Many
expect -cli to exist in order to manually send commands to their bitcoind so it
is unexpected for it to be installed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #74 from Warren Togami ---
Points of Agreement:
* Rename package to "bitcoincore"
* Conflicts: bitcoin
* Ask FESCO to disallow any package named "bitcoin".
Advice:
* EL7's boost is too old while EL8+ and Fedora are easy to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #73 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #72)
> Current package (0.21.0-4) _requires_ selinux subpackage.
> So - no way to install bitcoin server without selnux.
> What about 'Recommends' or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #72 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
Current package (0.21.0-4) _requires_ selinux subpackage.
So - no way to install bitcoin server without selnux.
What about 'Recommends' or 'Suggests'?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #71 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #70)
> * Fedora's package should be named "bitcoincore". It should conflict with
> "bitcoin". This would allow a popular feature-fork "bitcoinknots" would have
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #70 from Warren Togami ---
I looked into packaging Guix for Fedora. It would be possible but difficult.
For now I give up on the reproducible build goal as that is a problem that
needs to be solved for the entire Fedora build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #69 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-0.21.0-4.fc33.src.rpm
* Wed Mar 10 2021 Simone Caronni - 0.21.0-4
- Fix build on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #68 from Simone Caronni ---
Separate SELinux policy package here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937302
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID||Red Hat Bugzilla 1937302
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #67 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-0.21.0-3.fc32.src.rpm
* Wed Mar 10 2021 Simone Caronni - 0.21.0-3
- Remove requirements for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #66 from Mattia Verga ---
*** Bug 1020292 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #65 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #64)
> (In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #59)
> > Seems hardcoded selinux dependency not resolved.
> > What about moving selinux things into -selinux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #64 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #59)
> Seems hardcoded selinux dependency not resolved.
> What about moving selinux things into -selinux subpackage?
Replied here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #63 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #61)
> > %package server
> > Requires: %{name}-utils%{_isa} = %{version}
>
> Really?
Well, to interact with the daemon you require the cli, but is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #62 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #60)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> > Also create a logrotate file for the log:
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #61 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
> %package server
> Requires: %{name}-utils%{_isa} = %{version}
Really?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #60 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> Also create a logrotate file for the log:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_logrotate_config_file
And this is not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #59 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
Seems hardcoded selinux dependency not resolved.
What about moving selinux things into -selinux subpackage?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Warren Togami changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wtog...@gmail.com
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #58 from Warren Togami ---
> Yes, I know. But this doesn't automatically mean that Bitcoin Core developers
> are right. Ethereum developers have radically different opinion, for example.
Ethereum has had numerous emergency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Warren Togami changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #57 from Warren
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #56 from Oleg Girko ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #55)
> Oleg wrote:
> > So far this threat is purely theoretical, there were no incidents related
> > to that.
>
> This is incorrect. Some alt coins like PPC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #55 from Warren Togami ---
Oleg wrote:
> So far this threat is purely theoretical, there were no incidents related to
> that.
This is incorrect. Some alt coins like PPC suffered exactly a catastrophic fork
because they
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #54 from Oleg Girko ---
I think that threat of unintentional fork due to slightly different versions of
system libraries is significantly exaggerated. So far this threat is purely
theoretical, there were no incidents related to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #53 from Simone Caronni ---
First of all, I've been using these packages myself for years, but I'm all in
for one that is fine by everyone, including your concerns.
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #52)
> I did not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #52 from Warren Togami ---
> For the 0.21 release something has changed in the boost code, so Boost as
> provided by the base distribution in CentOS/RHEL 7 is no longer enough.
I have a plan to fix this and more for RHEL7+ and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #50 from Warren Togami ---
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/guix/-/tree/debian/devel/debian
I'm told this is how Debian packaged Guix. It appears to be a proper bootstrap
starting from guile.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #51 from Warren Togami ---
oops wrong ticket
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #49 from Warren Togami ---
> - permissions of /etc/bitcoin folder (0750) too strict - ordinary users
> cannot view conf
You mean bitcoin.conf? You absolutely do not want other users to be able to
read that. It can contains
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Warren Togami changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wtog...@gmail.com
--- Comment #48
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #47 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Oleg Girko from comment #45)
> - Update to 0.21.0.
For the 0.21 release something has changed in the boost code, so Boost as
provided by the base distribution in CentOS/RHEL 7 is no longer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #46 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-0.21.0-2.fc32.src.rpm
* Wed Jan 20 2021 Simone Caronni - 0.21.0-2
- Update to 0.21.0.
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #45 from Oleg Girko ---
Everything builds OK if I remove java from build requirements.
I've built updated packages with the following changes:
- Update to 0.21.0.
- Use /var/tmp instead of /tmp as tmpdirprefix for functional
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #44 from Oleg Girko ---
1. Please add "--tmpdirprefix %{_tmppath}" to command line args of functional
tests in "%check" section. By default, "/tmp" is used by tests for temporary
data dirs, usually it's mounted as tmpfs, but some
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #43 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #42)
> Anyone up for review? And maybe help with the SELinux policy as well.
I can review but just after selinux fix.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #42 from Simone Caronni ---
Anyone up for review? And maybe help with the SELinux policy as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #41 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #40)
> (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #39)
>
> Keep in mind that now:
> - bitcoins service does not covers DATA_DIR (/etc/sysconfig/bitcoin) with
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #40 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #39)
Keep in mind that now:
- bitcoins service does not covers DATA_DIR (/etc/sysconfig/bitcoin) with
"datadir=" variable from /etc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf.
So
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #39 from Simone Caronni ---
House move, renovations, virus, work, kids, you name the issue.
No time yet for looking at the SELinux policy.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #38 from Simone Caronni ---
Getting back to this over the weekend. I just moved and got back internet
today.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #37 from marco ---
> BuildRequires: openssl-devel
> BuildRequires: protobuf-devel
I believe neither of them are needed at all
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #36 from Simone Caronni ---
I've tested with a few wallets and everything is fine, no conversion needed.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #35 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-0.20.0-6.fc32.src.rpm
* Tue Jul 21 2020 Simone Caronni - 0.20.0-6
- Update systemd unit.
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #34 from Simone Caronni ---
I'll be away from the 25th of July for holidays until the 17th of August.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #33 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #32)
> Thank you for adding the signature verification, but you're still using HTTP
> instead of HTTPS in URL and Source20 for no reason I can see.
Just forgot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #32 from Björn Persson ---
Thank you for adding the signature verification, but you're still using HTTP
instead of HTTPS in URL and Source20 for no reason I can see.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #31 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-0.20.0-4.fc32.src.rpm
* Sun Jul 19 2020 Simone Caronni - 0.20.0-4
- Fix tests on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #30 from Simone Caronni ---
Thanks, I've added signature verification which is a bit from all comments
above.
The packaging guidelines are pretty clear about signatures, so:
- Key is downloaded from the keyserver (as also
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Girko ---
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #28)
> (In reply to Oleg Girko from comment #27)
> > I think, the main PGP public key's checksum should be embedded into spec
> > file and checked against to make
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #28 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to Oleg Girko from comment #27)
> What about those who want to re-build the package from the spec file
I would recommend rebuilding from the source RPM package. Rebuilding from only
a spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #27 from Oleg Girko ---
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #26)
> (In reply to marco from comment #25)
> > Source12 simply downloads the key from
> > https://bitcoin.org/laanwj-releases.asc without checking the hash or
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #26 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to marco from comment #25)
> Source12 simply downloads the key from
> https://bitcoin.org/laanwj-releases.asc without checking the hash or
> fingerprint, so there is no way to detect changes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #25 from marco ---
> packagers must be very careful when a release-signing key changes
Source12 simply downloads the key from https://bitcoin.org/laanwj-releases.asc
without checking the hash or fingerprint, so there is no way to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #24 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to marco from comment #23)
> If you fetch the key from the same website the binaries are taken from,
> there is no security. Anyone replacing the binaries can trivially replace
> the key.
That
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #23 from marco ---
If you fetch the key from the same website the binaries are taken from, there
is no security. Anyone replacing the binaries can trivially replace the key.
Also, bitcoincore.org is the official download site
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Björn Persson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #21 from Daniel Walsh ---
Don't think you have to build multiple different SELinux policies, one should
work on all variants.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #20 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to marco from comment #17)
> * In the spec file, what exactly is `Source4` used for?
Contains some things related to packaging (icon, desktop menu, etc.). I might
remove it entirely at some
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #19 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #16)
> (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> > > Also create a logrotate file for the log:
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #18 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to marco from comment #17)
> * Why is the Bitcoin Core package called `bitcoin` and not `bitcoin-core`
> like in other package managers. E.g. https://snapcraft.io/bitcoin-core or
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #17 from marco ---
Some questions.
* In the spec file, what exactly is `Source4` used for?
* Why is the Bitcoin Core package called `bitcoin` and not `bitcoin-core` like
in other package managers. E.g.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #16 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #10)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> > Also create a logrotate file for the log:
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #15 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Vit Mojzis from comment #14)
> The Independent policy guide
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/IndependentPolicy) should cover all
> you need in terms of packaging the policy.
> As
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Vit Mojzis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmoj...@redhat.com
--- Comment #14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #13 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> - Could you follow the rules specified at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/IndependentPolicy and use the
> %pre/%post macros documented
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Could you follow the rules specified at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/IndependentPolicy and use the %pre/%post
macros documented there?
- See the post by DWalsh on the -devel ML:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni ---
In the meanwhile, before changing anything for the logging:
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-0.20.0-2.fc32.src.rpm
* Tue Jun
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #10 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> Also create a logrotate file for the log:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_logrotate_config_file
A couple of notes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> Source0:
> http://github.com/%{name}/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.
> gz
Updated.
> - Why does the core subpackage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni ---
Thanks for the feedback, updating the package now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Also create a logrotate file for the log:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_logrotate_config_file
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ti.eug...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni ---
Thanks I will look at it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
