Bug 1686022
| Summary: | Review Request: WireGuard - Tools for estabilishing a WireGuard secure IP tunnel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | eclipseo, jamacku, package-review |
| 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: | 2019-03-07 15:26:32 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: | |||
|
Description
Lubomir Rintel
2019-03-06 14:59:32 UTC
It's already available in RPMFusion along with the kmod (I'm the maintainer): https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/wireguard.git/tree/wireguard.spec https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/wireguard-kmod.git/tree/wireguard-kmod.spec Any reason to repackage it here? (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > It's already available in RPMFusion along with the kmod (I'm the maintainer): > > https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/wireguard.git/tree/wireguard.spec > https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/wireguard-kmod.git/tree/wireguard-kmod. > spec Didn't know. Thanks for the pointer. > Any reason to repackage it here? Well, yes; I'm generally interested in getting the free software I use from Fedora, not RPM fusion or anything else. Could we somehow deduplicate the efforts? Perhaps iron out the differences between the SPECS or throw either of them away. I don't particularly care which one. I basically just care about the tooling being available in Fedora, esp. once the kernel parts hit mainline kernel. If you'd prefer to keep your package, please submit a Fedora review request and close this one as duplicate. I'd be happy to review it. Otherwise let's just proceed with this one -- either way works for me. > esp. once the kernel parts hit mainline kernel
Do you know when is it supposed to happen? This package by itself is useless without the kernel module, isn't it?
I would like to comaintain it at least if you plan to package it here.
- Regarding the Review, you're missing the SystemD macros.
%{?systemd_requires}
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
[…]
%post
%systemd_post wg-quick@.service
%preun
%systemd_preun wg-quick@.service
%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart wg-quick@.service
- Add the examples to the %doc. (remove the .gitignore files there)
- Use %set_build_flags to use all the default flags.
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- Use standard perms for /etc/wireguard instead of 0700 in the Makefile
I don't know how to coordinate between RPMFusion and Fedora. On what branches do you want to package it?
Would you be okay to add Release: 2%{?dist} to supersede the RPMFusion package?
Would you add:
Provides: %{name}-kmod-common = %{version}
The problem is I need to sync the kmod package to the tools package and if we are handling this separately, it's gonna be problematic.
Discussed with head honcho at RPMFusion, suggested to close as duplicate. I have fusionned both SPECs, hopefully it will work fine: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1686506 *** |