All files related to my RPM spec file project in one commit #7609

pull AliceWonderMiscreations wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from AliceWonderMiscreations:master changing 7 files +902 −0
  1. AliceWonderMiscreations commented at 5:37 PM on February 26, 2016: contributor

    This is an attempt at the former pull request - #7588 (comment) - as a single commit.

    The RPM package manager is used by several Linux distributions.

    This provides an RPM spec file that is clean and builds properly on CentOS 7 (RHEL 7 clone) and should hopefully easily facilitate building RPM packages on other platforms as well.

    It defaults to building against OpenSSL and the Qt5 GUI toolkit, but it supports switches that allow easily building against LibreSSL and/or Qt4 and/no no GUI.

    See the README.md file in the contrib/rpm directory for more details.

  2. All files related to my RPM spec file project in one commit 146746bbaf
  3. Description of RPM directory 0e4b50a48c
  4. AliceWonderMiscreations commented at 6:11 PM on February 26, 2016: contributor

    Okay in two commits, forgot to commit the modification to the contrib/README.md file

  5. jonasschnelli added the label Docs and Output on Feb 26, 2016
  6. laanwj commented at 9:01 AM on February 29, 2016: member

    utACK

  7. AliceWonderMiscreations commented at 1:05 PM on March 1, 2016: contributor

    I just wanted to clarify a note about the spec file and the generation of PNG / XPM images in the spec file.

    The reason for that, the Source0 specifies the release tarball rather than github tagged release. The PNG / XPM files in github are not in the release tarball, so it was either list 10 additional github sources for them or list one additional vector source for the graphic and generate the icons from it.

    I chose the latter.

  8. in contrib/rpm/bitcoin-0.12.0-libressl.patch:None in 0e4b50a48c 
       0 | @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
   1 | +diff -ur bitcoin-0.12.0.orig/src/init.cpp bitcoin-0.12.0/src/init.cpp
   2 | +--- bitcoin-0.12.0.orig/src/init.cpp	2015-12-31 16:00:00.000000000 -0800
   3 | ++++ bitcoin-0.12.0/src/init.cpp	2016-02-23 06:03:47.133227757 -0800
   4 | +@@ -1075,7 +1075,7 @@
   5 | +     if (fPrintToDebugLog)
   6 | +         OpenDebugLog();
   7 | + 
   8 | +-#if (OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L)
   9 | ++#if defined(LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER) || (OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L)
    MarcoFalke commented at 2:26 PM on March 3, 2016:

    Looks like this patch would be no longer needed.

    jonasschnelli commented at 2:28 PM on March 3, 2016:

    Nice catch! Agree.

    AliceWonderMiscreations commented at 2:33 PM on March 3, 2016:

    Correct but the patch is needed for 0.12.0 source tarball as distributed by bitcoin.org. The README.md file states that the patch will likely not be needed when 0.12.1 is released.

  9. laanwj added the label Needs backport on Mar 3, 2016
  10. laanwj commented at 3:00 PM on March 3, 2016: member

    You're merging this to master, and I've added a Needs Backport so it will end up in 0.12.1. There's no need to include patches for other problems that are solved in 0.12.1.

  11. in contrib/rpm/README.md:None in 0e4b50a48c 
       0 | @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
   1 | +RPM Spec File Notes
   2 | +-------------------
   3 | +
   4 | +The RPM spec file provided here is for Bitcoin-Core 0.12.0 and builds on CentOS
    MarcoFalke commented at 3:08 PM on March 3, 2016:

    Is is useful to distribute those RPM spec files via git, considering that they need update/bump prior to each release? (Including them in master for 0.12.0 makes them somewhat less accessible, compared to having them in the tag v0.12.0 or a separate place)

    laanwj commented at 3:23 PM on March 3, 2016:

    Well we do the same for the debian files... I think it can make sense to include them, at least if someone is going to maintain them.

    AliceWonderMiscreations commented at 3:31 PM on March 3, 2016:

    Well my primary motivation was to provide something RPM packagers could use as a starting point that puts things in the proper places, does the proper testing on build of the binaries, etc.

    RPM spec files distributed in upstream source rarely make into any package repository without some tweaking by the packager. For example, Fedora packaging guidelines discourage packaging of the .la libtool files or the .a static libraries. So someone building for Fedora packaging would likely change %install to delete those files, and then remove them from the %files bitcoin-devel.

    If preferred a bitcoin.specfile.in file could be created so that autoconf / automake system could fill in the version, that means autoconf has to be run before the spec file is useful, and it makes the %changelog less clear.

  12. MarcoFalke commented at 4:04 PM on March 3, 2016: member

    Concept ACK 0e4b50a

  13. laanwj merged this on Mar 24, 2016
  14. laanwj closed this on Mar 24, 2016
  15. laanwj referenced this in commit 3ba07bdf7d on Mar 24, 2016
  16. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit db80a47026 on Apr 26, 2016
  17. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 85912e3264 on Apr 26, 2016
  18. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit b3a709608b on Apr 26, 2016
  19. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 7e431b7e8b on Apr 27, 2016
  20. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 591f5572c9 on Apr 27, 2016
  21. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit c80e173ca7 on Apr 27, 2016
  22. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit cc1d0de714 on Apr 29, 2016
  23. wtogami commented at 3:08 AM on April 30, 2016: contributor

    I wish I saw this earlier. This RPM spec is far from clean, the quality of the .spec is quite poor and it would not pass any package review standards (like Fedora). I also question why it encourages and offers to patch out the build-time prohibition of libressl which was intentionally disabled in Bitcoin.

    I do not advise going further with better automating this with a .in file until we've had the opportunity to discuss how we should proceed together as a community. I generally find it inadvisable for upstream projects to ship any .spec file at all because they tend to be specific to a particular Linux distribution and version, for example the BuildRequires can differ substantially.

    I would suggest that we separate out the SELinux policy into a different directory and discuss what that should do. The SELinux policy shipped in an upstream source repo should have documentation of what it is meant to be allowed or disallowed, in addition to a security review like any other code would be reviewed to confirm that it actually meets the stated goals.

  24. MarcoFalke commented at 9:44 PM on April 30, 2016: member

    Related discussion: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292

  25. laanwj commented at 9:55 AM on May 4, 2016: member

    @wtogami feel free to improve it

  26. MarcoFalke commented at 9:58 AM on May 4, 2016: member

    If this is still WIP, it should probably not be backported right now?

  27. wtogami commented at 6:47 PM on May 4, 2016: contributor

    If this is WIP, why was it committed to the core repo? In any case it's fine to exist here, I will just suggest that people ignore it because it is of poor quality. I don't think "fixing" it in the core repo is a good idea because you can't make a RPM spec that is valid on all distros.

  28. MarcoFalke removed the label Needs backport on May 4, 2016
  29. laanwj commented at 2:13 PM on May 5, 2016: member

    If this is WIP, why was it committed to the core repo?

    Because it may be a useful start for some people. I think all of our documents can be considered WIP at this stage.

  30. codablock referenced this in commit b1e7ccbbdb on Sep 16, 2017
  31. codablock referenced this in commit f5b8d2ff46 on Sep 19, 2017
  32. codablock referenced this in commit 31e6813fdb on Dec 9, 2017
  33. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit d3d70e2e7a on Sep 19, 2019
  34. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 71c3c808a0 on Sep 23, 2019
  35. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 05b3ffb14d on Sep 24, 2019
  36. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit c2db17af3f on Nov 19, 2019
  37. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 15c9a8e868 on Dec 21, 2019
  38. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 4896f0960d on Jan 2, 2020
  39. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 8f402752f2 on Jan 4, 2020
  40. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit d3197a1d33 on Jan 4, 2020
  41. UdjinM6 referenced this in commit 1edfdb045c on Jan 5, 2020
  42. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit a3ca140027 on Jan 6, 2020
  43. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit fb58ade9b5 on Jan 12, 2020
  44. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 4c02539bd8 on Jan 12, 2020
  45. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 633b6295ea on Jan 12, 2020
  46. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021
Contributors
AliceWonderMiscreationslaanwjMarcoFalkejonasschnelliwtogami
Labels
Docs
Linked (view graph)
#7588 Sample RPM spec file for Bitcoin 0.12.0
github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bitcoin. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-04-22 18:15 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me