Skip to content
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

Create a Fedora compatible package #3781

Closed
Lailah opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 22 comments
Closed

Create a Fedora compatible package #3781

Lailah opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 22 comments
Labels
A-Packaging Packaging, signing, releasing P3 T-Enhancement

Comments

@Lailah
Copy link

Lailah commented May 1, 2017

Description

A desktop app for RPM based systems, such as Fedora and OpenSuse.

Steps to reproduce

It's a mess to use it on Fedora while it works nicely on Debian. A RPM package would be greatly appreciated. Or at least an executable (like Firefox and Telegram).

Version information

  • Platform: Desktop

For the desktop app:

  • OS: Fedora Workstation 25 (fully updated)
@ara4n
Copy link
Member

ara4n commented May 2, 2017

@uhoreg
Copy link
Member

uhoreg commented Aug 24, 2017

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/taw/Riot/ seems to be quite outdated currently

@TheLastProject
Copy link
Contributor

TheLastProject commented Aug 27, 2017

As a Fedora user, just voicing my feedback here, this would help tremendously. And yes, @ara4n, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/taw/Riot/ always worked great (while it was maintained), aside from one build missing some emojis.

@t3chguy
Copy link
Member

t3chguy commented Aug 27, 2017

@dbkr surely an automated build&release server for Electron builds would be ideal, that way throwing more release types would be a breeze? IIRC Matthew said you have a Mac build server

@dbkr
Copy link
Member

dbkr commented Aug 29, 2017

I'd definitely like to make a build server but I don't think that helps with more release types: the current build script can spit out more packages just as much as if it were running on a build server. The overhead would be managing where we put the resulting packages, eg. we could just spit out an rpm but then this wouldn't auto-update so we'd presumably do a copr package or something, which is not too difficult but it all incrementally adds to the complexity of the release process.

@akontsevich
Copy link

akontsevich commented Sep 2, 2017

Good this ticket is created: nice to have RPM package on openSUSE as well: ring, skype, qtox are present already - only riot-web missed. Thanks!

@dani
Copy link

dani commented Sep 5, 2017

There's also https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ansiwen/Riot/ which is a bit more recent (not tested)

@TheLastProject
Copy link
Contributor

To underline the apparent demand for this, Fedora Magazine, which is on the default Firefox homepage on Fedora, mentioned Riot and linked to ansiwen's COPR (which is unfortunately outdated): https://fedoramagazine.org/4-cool-new-projects-try-copr/

@taw00
Copy link

taw00 commented Sep 25, 2017

UPDATED: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/taw/Riot/
Sorry folks. Took a technical (and corporate) leave of absence. I will try to keep a bit more current. :)

@akontsevich
Copy link

akontsevich commented Sep 28, 2017

UPDATED: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/taw/Riot/

Works fine in openSUSE however need to download and install manually, repo does not work for openSUSE.

@kees-closed
Copy link

Since there is still no word on official support for RPM based system such as Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, SLES or OpenSUSE. Can we at least get an indication if this is planned for the future, if at all?

And can we please have a stamp of approval for the Flatpak version? Can we consider it as a trusted source? And if not, please advice.

@jryans
Copy link
Collaborator

jryans commented Mar 19, 2019

And can we please have a stamp of approval for the Flatpak version? Can we consider it as a trusted source? And if not, please advice.

The Flatpak version seems reasonable to me, since it appears to build from our deb package and add some icons and desktop files. Of course, I can't make any guarantees since we don't publish it ourselves. It may also be harder for us to support issues that come up since we don't have direct control over it.

@taw00
Copy link

taw00 commented Mar 20, 2019

I could build the RPMs from the binaries (that are built for other linuxes). I have done this in the past in testing. But, IMHO that is ... simply "incorrect" packaging. :) Plus, in the end, even those lean heavily on 3-party bits of code that come from free-for-all places like various javascript registries.

Though I have been building RPMs for over two years now as a member of the Riot community. I suppose I could (a) petition to have them somehow become "blessed" by the team (the vector dudes), and (b) pursue getting them included into the Fedora distribution... which is challenging since everything has to build from source to make it into the distro and has to build without relying on reaching across the internet (has to build in place), and Riot uses 1-billion external packages.

Dunno. I do need a "hit by a bus" plan for these RPMs though. Someday, I am sure, they will just suddenly stop being updated... ;)

In the meantime: https://github.com/taw00/riot-rpm -- the project that tracks the builds for https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/taw/Riot/

@kees-closed
Copy link

@taw00 I should have more free time in about 6 months. I could then help to co-maintain it for Fedora. Unless of course Flatpak is the "correct" way to package it. Then it would be very nice to advertise it as such on the Riot web page.

@taw00
Copy link

taw00 commented Mar 20, 2019

The "incorrect" thing I am referencing is repackaging binaries built with foreign libraries, on potentially foreign architectures, waving a wand and calling it "Fedora" (or any other distribution for that matter). Whether that be a Flatpak or an RPM (just a packaging format). The ideal scenario is to build the application on the distribution that is the target with libraries for the architecture of that target, and that build system is self-contained with no reliance on external repositories... Flatpak vs. RPM is just a fancy word for "zipfile". :) And the RPMs are already advertised ... somewhere. Or at least they used to be.

Anyway. I am happy to continue to build these RPMs indefinitely though I have a todo list that I would love folks to help with (I think)...

  • Make the OpenSUSE builds more reliable -- DONE
  • Remove all dependence on external repos
  • Track CVE vulnerable dependencies and report them upstream
  • Fully test and flesh out SELinux context for Riot
  • Seek inclusion into the Fedora Project proper (have to achieve all the stuff above first)
  • Improve Riot.im's ubuntu, arch, etc builds by contributing upstream (icons, HighContrast, and things like riot.appdata.xml metadata, etc. etc) -- cuz, Riot's own deb's for example, could use some work.

Anyway... I am rambling at this point. Can probably close this issue as solved. It's been solved for a long time.

@Lailah
Copy link
Author

Lailah commented May 7, 2019

@taw00 So there is a RPM package? Where can I find it? Does it work in Fedora 29 or 30?

@taw00
Copy link

taw00 commented May 11, 2019

@Lailah

@taw00 So there is a RPM package? Where can I find it? Does it work in Fedora 29 or 30?

https://github.com/taw00/riot-rpm
Yes. EL7, Fedora 28, 29, and 30, OpenSUSE 15 and Tumbleweed.
An aside: riot builds fine on the EL8 beta trees, but still waiting for RH to update mock with the production EL8 trees.

@Lailah
Copy link
Author

Lailah commented May 11, 2019

Cool, thank you! I'm closing this now.

@Lailah Lailah closed this as completed May 11, 2019
@jryans jryans added the A-Packaging Packaging, signing, releasing label Jul 29, 2019
@Mikaela
Copy link
Contributor

Mikaela commented Sep 13, 2021

Is the taw00 package official(ly supported) or why is this issue closed? It's not mentioned on Element website which only has Debian/Ubuntu instructions and I think most of people wouldn't come looking for a GitHub issue.

@taw00
Copy link

taw00 commented Nov 1, 2021

It's not officially supported. It was "blessed" though in the past with a link to it from their website. In fact they linked to several community supplied packages. They stopped that, and I am not sure why. It may be for liability reasons, I don't know. Either that or they are simply trying to steer everyone to flatpak / snap packaging. I will ask.

@taw00
Copy link

taw00 commented Nov 4, 2021

I asked and ... My COPR repository is already linked from the Element website (via install instructions for Fedora and CentOS).

Cheers. -t

@linuxmail
Copy link

hi,

btw: there is no newer version, than element-1.9.7-1.fc34.taw.x86_64

PROBLEM: The Element source-code ships with non-free code (really, it is the Electron platform's fault).
PROBLEM: Until I resolve that in some way, I can no longer build this package.
PROBLEM: Stay tuned.

that is pretty sad. Question is .. how to build an own RPM version for Fedora35 and above.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-Packaging Packaging, signing, releasing P3 T-Enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests