Fedora build instructions, as required at #688 (comment)
Build instructions for Fedora #1216
pull olea wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from olea:master changing 1 files +15 −0-
olea commented at 9:07 AM on May 7, 2012: none
-
Building instructions for Fedora 7b53b2b82b
-
laanwj commented at 9:42 AM on May 7, 2012: member
ACK
-
gmaxwell commented at 12:42 PM on May 7, 2012: contributor
These instructions simply instruct people to get their bitcoin from your site, which is currently distributing an out of date bitcoin along with a copy of openssl which doesn't have the latest vulnerability fixes. So I think this is a NAK at the moment.
I'd rather package the spec file in Bitcoin, though I'm not sure what to do about the OpenSSL. I understand that redhat is considering no longer excluding the ECC stuff.
-
olea commented at 12:54 PM on May 7, 2012: none
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell < reply@reply.github.com
wrote:
These instructions simply instruct people to get their bitcoin from your site, which is currently distributing an out of date bitcoin along with a copy of openssl which doesn't have the latest vulnerability fixes.
It's still useful for advanced users for rebuild it with updates at their own.
I'd rather package the spec file in Bitcoin,
That would be nice: http://olea.org/tmp/bitcoin.spec
though I'm not sure what to do about the OpenSSL. I understand that redhat is considering no longer excluding the ECC stuff.
I'll be really happy to discard the openssl compilation, but at least at Fedora 16 it's necessary.
Ismael Olea
-
jgarzik commented at 1:40 PM on May 7, 2012: contributor
openssl recompilation is necessary yes, but gmaxwell's points about outdated bitcoin and openssl versions still stand.
-
olea commented at 11:01 PM on May 7, 2012: none
Ok, I've updated to 0.6.1 and last openssl: http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/repoview/bitcoin.html
Nice to see bitcoin rebuilds easily between versions.
So, what is your prefered way to link/point/describe to the Fedora building? As I said I'm open to contrib the spec file too.
-
jgarzik commented at 8:16 PM on May 8, 2012: contributor
I think the preferred form is probably
- specfile patch for openssl
- specfile for bitcoin
...plus any requirements those specfiles need, outside of the distribution tarballs themselves.
- jgarzik closed this on May 8, 2012
-
olea commented at 8:34 PM on May 8, 2012: none
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Jeff Garzik < reply@reply.github.com
wrote:
I think the preferred form is probably
- specfile patch for openssl
- specfile for bitcoin
I don't see why to split both.
the reason for for including openssl is just the platform one removes Bitcoin's needed feature, openssl is not distributed as binary since it's statically linked (correct my if I'm wrong)
with this assumption would be unnecessary to install a pristine openssl rpm, only useful for building plus creating conflicts with the OS platform.
this approximation is the most straightforward for me as maintainer, for advanced users who want to rebuild package by themselves and for the enduser.
Ismael Olea
-
jgarzik commented at 8:40 PM on May 8, 2012: contributor
Two specfiles, for two separate packages. @gmaxwell already does this for openssl, in fact: http://people.xiph.org/~greg/openssl/
-
gmaxwell commented at 9:12 PM on May 8, 2012: contributor
Openssl shouldn't be statically linked except for our special binary builds.
-
olea commented at 11:12 AM on May 10, 2012: none
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Gregory Maxwell < reply@reply.github.com
wrote:
Openssl shouldn't be statically linked except for our special binary builds.
Hum. Then all my work is fruitless.
Sorry folks.
Ismael Olea
- suprnurd referenced this in commit 0e65968384 on Dec 5, 2017
- lateminer referenced this in commit 323983c1d4 on Jan 22, 2019
- DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021
Linked (view graph)