https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #167 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03592f538a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #166 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-70521803fa has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #165 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-2c587477ac has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #163 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03592f538a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03592f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #162 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-69091367ab has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-690913
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #161 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-2c587477ac has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #160 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-70521803fa has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #159 from Fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #157 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-2c587477ac has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2c587477ac
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #154 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #154 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #158 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-69091367ab has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-69091367ab
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #156 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-70521803fa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-70521803fa
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notifi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #153 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bitcoin-core
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #152 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #151)
> Also, please add metainfo files for the GUI software subpackage. :)
Sure will do before issuing the first update in Bodhi! many thanks.
--
You are receiv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #151 from Neal Gompa ---
Also, please add metainfo files for the GUI software subpackage. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
Assignee|nob...@f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #148 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #147)
> this review has lasted 21 months and 2 weeks :)
Longer then CentOS7 after RHEL7 released?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #147 from Simone Caronni ---
Many review pauses from everyone (me included) but this review has lasted 21
months and 2 weeks :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(wtog...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #145 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Suvayu from comment #144)
> (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #142)
> > (In reply to Warren Togami from comment #137)
> > > 1) "bitcoin-core" is not a good main package name because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #144 from Suvayu ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #142)
> (In reply to Warren Togami from comment #137)
> > 1) "bitcoin-core" is not a good main package name because it looks like
> > "core" is a subpackage. "bitcoincor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #143 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Oleg Girko from comment #139)
> Also, I'm not sure whether it makes sense to build libbitcoinconsensus as a
> shared library. Does it have any ABI stability guarantees? Are there any
> uses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #142 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #137)
> 1) "bitcoin-core" is not a good main package name because it looks like
> "core" is a subpackage. "bitcoincore" would be a fine single word name that
> ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #141 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Oleg Girko from comment #138)
> (In reply to Warren Togami from comment #137)
> > 1) "bitcoin-core" is not a good main package name because it looks like
> > "core" is a subpackage. "bitcoi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #140 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #137)
> The tests are too extensive. They are NOT used during the official release
> process. They are not needed here.
IMHO to skip all tests is not good idea
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #139 from Oleg Girko ---
Also, I'm not sure whether it makes sense to build libbitcoinconsensus as a
shared library. Does it have any ABI stability guarantees? Are there any uses
of this library outside of this project envisioned?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #138 from Oleg Girko ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #137)
> 1) "bitcoin-core" is not a good main package name because it looks like
> "core" is a subpackage. "bitcoincore" would be a fine single word name that
> matche
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #137 from Warren Togami ---
Two main things continue to bother me (although don't consider this to be a
veto):
1) "bitcoin-core" is not a good main package name because it looks like "core"
is a subpackage. "bitcoincore" would be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #136 from Simone Caronni ---
miniupnpc packages for epel 8+ on the way:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=miniupnpc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #135 from Simone Caronni ---
Do we have anything else to cover as part of the review?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and componen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #134 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #133)
> I took the time to write a patch. Here's how to avoid trusting a key whose
> owner says not to trust it.
Thank you!
I finally have time to work on it ag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #133 from Björn Persson ---
Created attachment 1843870
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1843870&action=edit
patch to filter out revoked and expired keys
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #131)
> (In reply
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #132 from Simone Caronni ---
Got stuck in work stuff. Will resume work on it this weekend or next week.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this pr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #131 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #128)
> Keys might have been revoked and expired and still being left on the key
> servers. We pick all those up, regardless of their expired/revoked status
> and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #130 from Simone Caronni ---
If you think this does not answer your concern please provide a patch/diff to
the script so I can understand what you mean. Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified abo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #129 from Simone Caronni ---
This is completely regenarated when calling the script:
https://github.com/negativo17/bitcoin-core/blob/master/bitcoin-gpg.inc
And we don't want that list to be empty because of mass revocations or
exp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #128 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #127)
> The signature verification in the spec also does not check whether keys have
> been revoked. If it did, it would help the packager catch mistakes, but
> t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #127 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #120)
> (In reply to Björn Persson from comment #117)
> > bitcoin-gpg.sh will include a revoked or expired key if it signs a release.
> > Such keys must be weeded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #126 from Simone Caronni ---
Actually, digging a bit deep into the issue, there is no need to migrate wallet
if you shutdown your client/node correctly before updating, as this excludes
the chance for pending transaction logs (the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #125 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core-22.0-4.fc34.src.rpm
* Sun Oct 03 2021 Simone Caronni - 22.0-4
- Switch to bundled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #124 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #123)
> > This week I became father again
>
> Congrats!
Thanks! Back to work now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #123 from Warren Togami ---
> This week I became father again
Congrats!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #122 from Simone Caronni ---
Thanks. This week I became father again, so I'm a bit distracted. Will take
care in the next days.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #121 from Warren Togami ---
Additional Sources to include in the .src.rpm
=
depends/sources/db-4.8.30.NC.tar.gz
depends/sources/download-stamps/.stamp_fetched-bdb-db-4.8.30.NC.tar.gz.hash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #120 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #117)
> bitcoin-gpg.sh relies on the tarball to tell it which keys should be used to
> verify the tarball. A manipulated tarball will of course contain a
> manipu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #119 from Warren Togami ---
>> The test suite is *excessively slow*. IMO we should not run these extensive
>> tests during these builds. Upstream official builds do not. We developers
>> should instead run these tests on the target
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Björn Persson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Type|Bug |---
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Björn Persson changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS|Linux |Unspecified
Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #116 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #74)
> * The bitcoin.service file bothers me in that a single system service is one
> of many ways in which bitcoind is used. I'd prefer if it was a .service type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #115 from Simone Caronni ---
This is probably the last version of the package with Berkeley DB 5.3 from the
repositories, the next one will use 4.8.
If you had a wallet running with these packages that was created with the
incompat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #114 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core-22.0-3.fc34.src.rpm
* Sat Sep 25 2021 Simone Caronni - 22.0-3
- Remove obsolete s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #113 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #81)
> > There exists a corner case where "stop" can take significantly more time
> > than any amount hardcoded here. Force kill in that situation causes data
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #112 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #111)
> Do you have koji builds for F34?
> To avoid unwanted koji builds from my side.
No, it's all here:
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #105)
> He
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #111 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #110)
> Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core.spec
> SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core-22.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
Do you ha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #110 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core-22.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
* Sat Sep 25 2021 Simone Caronni - 22.0-2
- Prepare all keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #109 from Simone Caronni ---
Now every signature (all 9) are checked for validity:
https://github.com/negativo17/bitcoin-core/blob/master/bitcoin-core.spec#L39-L40
https://github.com/negativo17/bitcoin-core/blob/master/bitcoin-cor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #108 from Simone Caronni ---
OK, this is much better:
https://github.com/negativo17/bitcoin-core/blob/1c3ee00c999b0ed8b3e497c7d9019ab1d8bc006b/bitcoin-gpg.sh
There is also another caveat, of all the GPG keys listed for the develop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #107 from Simone Caronni ---
I'll make the necessary adjustments if I can use the %include macro, to keep
the SPEC file less cluttered.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #106 from Simone Caronni ---
@Björn Persson here is the updated script and the sample output it generates:
https://github.com/negativo17/bitcoin-core/commit/2546a307014a5ae669bc0128077e07949e85c350
The key names are explicitly sa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #105 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Björn Persson from comment #104)
> Here's my proposal for how to check multiple signatures, ignoring missing
> keys but failing if there are any bad signatures:
>
> Source10: key-Someone.g
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #104 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #85)
> I need to download all of those keys in one GPG keyring
I think it may be better to keep each key in a separate file in Git.
Several of those keys will n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #103 from Simone Caronni ---
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-core-22.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
* Wed Sep 22 2021 Simone Caronni - 22.0-1
- Update to 22.0, v
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #102 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #74)
> Points of Agreement:
> * Rename package to "bitcoincore"
Actually "bitcoin-core", but same result.
> * EL7's boost is too old while EL8+ and Fedora are e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: bitcoin - |Review Request:
|Pee
66 matches
Mail list logo
