Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 1686022 - Review Request: WireGuard - Tools for estabilishing a WireGuard secure IP tunnel
Summary: Review Request: WireGuard - Tools for estabilishing a WireGuard secure IP tunnel
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1686506
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-03-06 14:59 UTC by Lubomir Rintel
Modified: 2019-03-07 15:33 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2019-03-07 15:26:32 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Lubomir Rintel 2019-03-06 14:59:32 UTC


WireGuard is a VPN that aims to be faster, simpler, leaner, and more
useful than IPsec and considerably more performant than OpenVPN. WireGuard
is designed as a general purpose VPN for running on embedded interfaces
and super computers alike, fit for many different circumstances. It runs
over UDP.

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 2019-03-06 16:49:34 UTC
It's already available in RPMFusion along with the kmod (I'm the maintainer):

Any reason to repackage it here?

Comment 2 Lubomir Rintel 2019-03-07 10:42:41 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> It's already available in RPMFusion along with the kmod (I'm the maintainer):
> spec

Didn't know. Thanks for the pointer.

> Any reason to repackage it here?

Well, yes; I'm generally interested in getting the free software I use from Fedora, not RPM fusion or anything else.
Could we somehow deduplicate the efforts? Perhaps iron out the differences between the SPECS or throw either of them away. I don't particularly care which one.

I basically just care about the tooling being available in Fedora, esp. once the kernel parts hit mainline kernel. If you'd prefer to keep your package, please submit a Fedora review request and close this one as duplicate. I'd be happy to review it. Otherwise let's just proceed with this one -- either way works for me.

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 2019-03-07 14:41:50 UTC
> esp. once the kernel parts hit mainline kernel

Do you know when is it supposed to happen? This package by itself is useless without the kernel module, isn't it?

I would like to comaintain it at least if you plan to package it here.

 - Regarding the Review, you're missing the SystemD macros.

BuildRequires:  systemd-rpm-macros


%systemd_post wg-quick@.service

%systemd_preun wg-quick@.service

%systemd_postun_with_restart wg-quick@.service

 - Add the examples to the %doc. (remove the .gitignore files there)

 - Use %set_build_flags to use all the default flags.

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - Use standard perms for /etc/wireguard instead of 0700 in the Makefile

I don't know how to coordinate between RPMFusion and Fedora. On what branches do you want to package it?

Would you be okay to add Release:        2%{?dist} to supersede the RPMFusion package?

Would you add:

Provides:       %{name}-kmod-common = %{version}

The problem is I need to sync the kmod package to the tools package and if we are handling this separately, it's gonna be problematic.

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 2019-03-07 15:26:32 UTC
Discussed with head honcho at RPMFusion, suggested to close as duplicate. I have fusionned both SPECs, hopefully it will work fine:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1686506 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.