-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 156
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
spec file contribution #114
Comments
I'm not familiar with building RPM packages, so I'm not sure where SPEC files belong. It seems the latest arp-scan RPM package is 1.9.7, which was tagged in Nov 2019, based on this webpage: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/arp-scan/arp-scan/. There is a request to upgrade to the latest upstream version here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133855. The build seems to be failing with a python script error, but I have no idea what the issue is:
Here's a summary of what arp-scan package versions are available for various distros: https://repology.org/project/arp-scan/packages I'm a bit surprised that there are no RPMs for anything later than 1.9.7, but other Linux distros are keeping more up to date so I think some maintainers do care about packaging arp-scan. Maybe containing the appropriate Fedora/Redhat maintainer to see if there is a reason why a later version hasn't been packaged would be the best first step. If there are any issues with arp-scan that are preventing the RPM packaging process, I'd be happy to address these. |
Fedora / Red Hat is censoring and suspending contributor`s account. I was the maintainer of arp-scan rpm back in 2020, I can no longer keep it up-to-date because my account was blocked / suspended ( can`t login or commit to git repo anymore ) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=4335 it`s happening with other contributors too, look this example -> |
Thanks, that's interesting. I see you've been packaging arp-scan for many years. I'm not involved in the packaging, but I'm happy to make any changes that would aid packaging for any distro, or to facilitate discussion on the topic. |
I tried to submit the spec file I have built (needs some adjustment from the fedora version; most notably adding the @royhills, if you just include a .spec file with the code, it makes the packager's task very simple. I have built many packages over the last while (from the early days of Redhat net install in 1997) and providing a basic spec file is always helpful to the individual users. I don't usually wait for packages that lag behind the developers (as you mentioned, RH is still on 1.9.7) and build my own. |
Thank you for the spec file. A couple of observations:
Thanks for the spec file. When I get some time I'll take a closer look at it. |
Thanks for your response. That is a lot to unpack. :) I'll do my best to address your observations: (I agree with all your observations.)
Adding added:
I am reading it is possible to use it like this, in %post:
Maybe I should ask in #fedora on libra.Chat? Attached updated zipped .spec |
|
Here's the spec file from the zip file posted earlier:
|
Note: Issue #115 shows that RPM package As there have been no issues logged for this bug, I suspect most people probably don't use |
I might be the only one I know that updates the |
Hi,
I have made a basic SPEC file for rpmbuilds on RPM based systems, which I am willing to share. Build tested on Centos8Stream, Fedora37 & 36, and I expect it will work on all RPM based systems with the listed pkgs installed. I plan on pursuing using fedpkg as well.
How does one go about contributing to this project? (even such a small bit :) ) Does anyone even care about packaging anymore?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: