Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Description of problem: Bitcoin ABC version of the library is not what users expect from the name 'libsecp256k1' Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): all How reproducible: 1. Go to https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/libsecp256k1/libsecp256k1/ 2. Observe that is it the ABC version of the library instead of the upstream version at https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1 Expected results: Should be the secp256k1 library from bitcoin-core since that is what is used in the prevalent Bitcoin implementation. The ABC library is for bitcoinabc.org which is e.cash, a cryptocurrency that Fedora doesn't even support.
I see on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263906 that it is pointed out that the fork support Schnorr signatures. But the upstream version also does this, albeit with a different interface, see https://github.com/haskoin/secp256k1-haskell/issues/46#issuecomment-1872193146
It was changed from upstream to Bitcoin-ABC in 2020, due to the better Schnorr support. I will have a look at the latest bitcoin-core release. > Should be the secp256k1 library from bitcoin-core since that is what is used in the prevalent Bitcoin implementation. The ABC library is for bitcoinabc.org which is e.cash, a cryptocurrency that Fedora doesn't even support. This package is currently only supported/tested for the official Fedora packages for electrum and electron-cash.
In my opinion it's a mistake to package secp256k1 separately as if it's useful as a dynamic link to multiple downstream projects. The "upstream" is a reference implementation. Downstream clients incorporate a particular version or fork of the upstream source with testing only against their own version.
@wtogami This package is depended on by the Electrum package, and that package, even in its official version, requires libsecp256k1: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/2f02e0acc321bce30b5ef8a3d9464d7105d883b9/README.md?plain=1#L37 So it would make sense to first convince Electrum to stop using the system package.
Is Bitcoin Core using this library? If not it's OK to be exactly what Electrum expects but please note it prominently in description?
No, you can see on https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core-desktop/fedora-rawhide.html#dependencies that libsecp256k1 is not a dependency
This have been fixed in Fedora 41