aboutgitcodebugslistschat
path: root/contrib/fedora/passt.spec
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* passt: Relicense to GPL 2.0, or any later versionStefano Brivio2023-04-061-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In practical terms, passt doesn't benefit from the additional protection offered by the AGPL over the GPL, because it's not suitable to be executed over a computer network. Further, restricting the distribution under the version 3 of the GPL wouldn't provide any practical advantage either, as long as the passt codebase is concerned, and might cause unnecessary compatibility dilemmas. Change licensing terms to the GNU General Public License Version 2, or any later version, with written permission from all current and past contributors, namely: myself, David Gibson, Laine Stump, Andrea Bolognani, Paul Holzinger, Richard W.M. Jones, Chris Kuhn, Florian Weimer, Giuseppe Scrivano, Stefan Hajnoczi, and Vasiliy Ulyanov. Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Adjust path for SELinux policy and interface file to latest guidelines2023_03_29.b10b983Stefano Brivio2023-03-291-9/+8
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Forget about: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft and: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux_Independent_Policy The guidelines to follow are: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/IndependentPolicy Start from fixing the most pressing issue, that is, a path conflict with policy-selinux-devel about passt.if, and, while at it, adjust the installation paths for policy files too. Reported-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@gmail.com> Link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182476 Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Don't install useless SELinux interface file for pastaStefano Brivio2023-03-291-2/+0
| | | | | | | | | | That was meant to be an example, and I just dropped it in the previous commit -- passt.if should be more than enough as a possible example. Reported-by: Carl G. <carlg@fedoraproject.org> Link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182145 Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Refresh SELinux labels in scriptlets, require -selinux package2023_03_17.dd23496Stefano Brivio2023-03-171-5/+15
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Instead of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft follow this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux_Independent_Policy which seems to make more sense and fixes the issue that, on a fresh install, without a reboot, the file contexts for the binaries are not actually updated. In detail: - labels are refreshed using the selinux_relabel_pre and selinux_relabel_post on install, upgrade, and uninstall - use the selinux_modules_install and selinux_modules_uninstall macros, instead of calling 'semodule' directly (no functional changes in our case) - require the -selinux package on SELinux-enabled environments and if the current system policy is "targeted" Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Install SELinux interface files to shared include directory2023_03_10.70c0765Stefano Brivio2023-03-101-0/+4
| | | | | Link: https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy/pull/1613 Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* conf, log, Makefile: Add versioning informationStefano Brivio2022-10-151-1/+1
| | | | | | | Add a --version option displaying that, and also include this information in the log files. Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Add selinux-policy Requires: tag2022_09_01.7ce9fd1Stefano Brivio2022-09-021-2/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | fedora-review says: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/selinux/packages/passt, /usr/share/doc/passt, /usr/share/selinux, /usr/share/selinux/packages and selinux-policy owns those two last ones. While at it, split Requires: tags also for post and preun actions onto different lines, for consistency. Reported-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Add %dir entries for own SELinux policy directory and documentationStefano Brivio2022-09-021-3/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | fedora-review says: Note: No known owner of /usr/share/selinux/packages/passt, /usr/share/doc/passt While at it, replace "passt" by "%{name}" in a few places for consistency. Reported-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Pass explicit bindir, mandir, docdir, and drop OpenSUSE overrideStefano Brivio2022-08-301-5/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | Fedora's parameters currently match the ones from the Makefile (which is based on GNU recommendations), but that's not necessarily guaranteed. This should make the OpenSUSE Tumbleweed override for docdir unnecessary: drop it. Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Use full versioning for SELinux subpackage Requires: tagStefano Brivio2022-08-301-1/+1
| | | | | | | | ...as recommended in: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package Reported-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Define git_hash in spec file and reuse itStefano Brivio2022-08-301-2/+4
| | | | | | | | | ...as it's used twice. The short version, however, appears hardcoded only once in the output, and it comes straight from the rpkg macro building the version string -- leave that macro as it is. Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Drop comment stating the spec file is an example fileStefano Brivio2022-08-301-2/+0
| | | | | | | ...as this ends up in the actual spec file. Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Drop SPDX identifier from spec fileStefano Brivio2022-08-301-2/+0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ...which makes it fall under MIT licensing terms. Daniel reports that it's very unusual for spec files to contain explicit licensing terms and might cause minor inconveniences later on, on mass changes to spec files. I originally added licensing information using SPDX identifiers to make the project fully compliant with the REUSE Specification 3.0 (https://reuse.software/spec/), but there are anyway a few more files not including explicit licensing information. It might be worth to fix that later on, in any case. Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* Makefile: Use more GNU-style directory variables, explicit docdir for OpenSUSE2022_08_21.7b71094Stefano Brivio2022-08-211-0/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | It turns out that, while on most distributions "docdir" would be /usr/share/doc, it's /usr/share/doc/packages/ on OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. Use an explicit docdir as shown in: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_cross_distribution_howto and don't unnecessarily hardcode directory variables in the Makefile. Otherwise, RPM builds for OpenSUSE will fail now that we have a README there. Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Fix man pages wildcards in spec fileStefano Brivio2022-08-201-5/+5
| | | | | | | | If the man pages are not compressed, the current wildcards wouldn't match them. Drop the trailing '.' from them. Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Don't hardcode CFLAGS setting, use %set_build_flags macro insteadStefano Brivio2022-08-201-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | This will also set any distribution-specific LDFLAGS. It's not needed anymore starting from Fedora 36, but the package might be built on other versions and distributions too (including e.g. CentOS Stream 8). Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Build SELinux subpackage as noarchStefano Brivio2022-08-201-0/+1
| | | | | | | | Otherwise, passt-selinux will be built separately for each supported architecture. Suggested-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Change source URL to HEAD link with explicit commit SHAStefano Brivio2022-08-201-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | This is required as Fedora doesn't accept a temporary pointer to a source URL. Reported-by: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Drop VCS tag from spec fileStefano Brivio2022-08-201-1/+0
| | | | | | | | | It seems to be exposed by Koji (https://pagure.io/koji/issue/2541), but it's not actually in use, so we have to drop that. The website the URL tag points to reports all the needed information anyway. Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Start Release tag from 1, not 0Stefano Brivio2022-08-201-1/+1
| | | | | | | | ...as specified by the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_simple_versioning Reported-by: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@svgames.pl> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Introduce own rpkg macro for changelogStefano Brivio2022-08-201-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | git_dir_changelog is useful in theory, but it requires pairs of annotated tags, which should be generated by rpkg itself to make any sense, implying a relatively heavyweight interaction whenever I want to push a new package version. Also, the default content of the changelog entries include the full list of changes, but the Fedora Packaging Guidelines specifically mention that: [t]hey must never simply contain an entire copy of the source CHANGELOG entries. We don't have a CHANGELOG file, but the full git history is conceptually equivalent for this purpose, I guess. Introduce our own passt_git_changelog() rpkg macro, building changelog entries, using tags in the form DATE-SHA, where DATE is an ISO 8601 date representation, and SHA is a short (7-digits) form of the head commit at a given moment (git push). These changelog entries mention, specifically, changes to the packaging information itself (entries under contrib/fedora), and simply report a link to cgit for the ranges between tags. Reported-by: Benson Muite <benson_muite@emailplus.org> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* fedora: Install "plain" README, instead of web version, and demo scriptStefano Brivio2022-08-201-2/+2
| | | | | Suggested-by: Benson Muite <benson_muite@emailplus.org> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* contrib/fedora: Use pre-processing macros in spec fileStefano Brivio2022-06-081-6/+7
| | | | | | ...they seem to be supported by COPR now and make things simpler. Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* contrib/fedora: Drop dashes from versionStefano Brivio2022-06-071-3/+3
| | | | | | COPR doesn't like them, and I'm trying to build packages there now. Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
* contrib: Add example spec file for FedoraStefano Brivio2022-03-301-0/+95
...with SELinux package, too. Tested on Fedora 35, but it should work on pretty much any version. Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2024-11-05 03:24:36 +0000