https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 --- Comment #52 from Warren Togami <wtogami@xxxxxxxxx> --- > For the 0.21 release something has changed in the boost code, so Boost as provided by the base distribution in CentOS/RHEL 7 is no longer enough. I have a plan to fix this and more for RHEL7+ and Fedora in a uniform way. It might take a few weeks for this to be ready. I can explain it sooner if you would like to talk. Sorry for injecting myself into this after you've put half a year of work into this. You disregarded critical warnings in Bug #1020292 as to why packaging this is hazardous. There are risks you are not familiar with as to why historically none of the leading distros (Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu) have packaged Bitcoin Core. Tldr: Builds dynamic linked to system libraries have previously been vulnerable to catastrophic network divergence. Distribution packages wouldn't be dangerous if only a few people used it. But should they become the most common way of using Bitcoin Core then it would be a systemic risk. This was not only a hypothetical problem. BIP66 is one such historical example that could have been exacerbated by distro packages becoming the most common way to run Bitcoin Core full nodes. The safer way for downstream distributions to handle this not become possible until recent upstream work (Guix-related). There's three step needed to make this usable for Fedora/RHEL. 1) Guix-based deterministic builds of Bitcoin Core to become the official release process (replacing their previous Ubuntu-based Gitian). This work is now 99% complete. 2) Add rpmbuild to upstream's Guix build process. It would generate deterministic binary RPMS alongside their binary tarballs. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/guix/-/tree/debian/devel/debian https://github.com/pjotrp/guix-notes/blob/master/GUIX-NO-ROOT.org 3) Package Guix for Fedora much in the same way as Debian did it. This would allow us to have a known deterministic build system that is capable of building identical binaries. I did not appreciate how you closed Bug #1020292 and disregarded the warnings written there. Out of respect I am not unilaterally closing this bug. Step #2 above is an opportunity to collaborate. I assigned one of my engineers to work on this. We should collaborate on what exactly we want to be in a bitcoincore RPM package. For example instead of your -server package we may want to consider systemd service @ units as an official way to configure and launch multiple nodes. -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
