https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 --- Comment #74 from Warren Togami <wtogami@xxxxxxxxx> --- Points of Agreement: * Rename package to "bitcoincore" * Conflicts: bitcoin * Ask FESCO to disallow any package named "bitcoin". Advice: * EL7's boost is too old while EL8+ and Fedora are easy to support. Let's drop EL7 and documentation should say to use bitcoincore.org's builds on EL7. The plan to maintain a work-alike package suitable for upstream builds so this should be convenient enough for end-users. * How about rename the 'core' subpackage to 'qt' since that is what it contains? * bitcoin-wallet is actually a utility? It isn't a required part for the server to function. Hard Line: * The official supported file format of wallet.dat is db4. "./configure --with-incompatible-bdb" is named as such because it is not intended to be used by distributors. It exists as an unsupported option so the software is possible to use where db4 does not conveniently exist. I strongly advise against shipping an incompatible data format in a package that may be widely used as it will be an inevitable point of support confusion. The software should work identically when switching between Fedora or upstream's build. The only maintainable choice here is to ship exactly the db4 that upstream maintains and tests against within this package. Future Bitcoin Core will migrate to a different database but it will forever need to link to db4 to allow for automatic wallet migration. Regarding README.utils.redhat: "By default bitcoin-cli looks for configuration at /etc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf. This must be readable only by users authorized to communicate with bitcoind." These binaries should behave the same as upstream's builds. The $HOME/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf default path should remain supported so it behaves identically to upstream builds. I haven't tested if this isn't the case now. Other suggestions for further discussion: * server vs core subpackage kind of bother me because while you don't use bitcoind and bitcoin-qt simultaneously they are functionally identical. I don't know what to suggest about this. * 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 that allowed for multiple admin "@" definable instances. There could also be a different .service file like "bitcoincore-homedir-service" that uses $HOME/.bitcoin as the datadir in the way many have already deployed the upstream binary? It is also my strong preference for the different types of .service files to be in their own subpackage. That would also help the above concern regarding a single hard-coded /etc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf not being how many use this software. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
