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

New RPM spec file for issue #574 #606

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

dsvetlov
Copy link
Contributor

@dsvetlov dsvetlov commented May 3, 2015

Hello!

I have make new spec file from atomicorp's one. This files uses only vanila OSSEC code from github repo and default configs from it.

I test it briefly. Seems it works. RPM builds, server and client from it works.

Hope it will help resolve issues #574 and #575

@awiddersheim
Copy link
Member

Restarted the build. Last one failed downloading packages or something.

@dsvetlov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi! Is there any problems with mergin this? How can I help?

@awiddersheim
Copy link
Member

Seems okay to me. @atomicturtle any objections?

@atomicturtle
Copy link
Member

Since this is based off my WIP spec file for 2.9, I'll go over the other things left to finish up here.

  1. On 2.9 we're only getting partial relro via full relro we had on 2.8
  2. I hadnt finished verifying all the permissions were set correctly
  3. The postgres module needs to be implemented
  4. cosmetics, I was planning on renaming it from "ossec-hids-client" to "ossec-hids-agent"
  5. conditional logic for the systemd service files
  6. Letters in a version field (2.9.0b3). This is going to look "newer" than "2.9.0" on an upgrade event.
  7. the authd certificate generation step isnt complete
  8. the geoip or other conditionals are better used via "with_XXXX" instead of a binary 0/1 case. This is so it can be passed in as a build time argument with mock or rpmbuild
  9. is there some reason you dropped the rules.d & decoders.d directories?

@dsvetlov
Copy link
Contributor Author

  1. On 2.9 we're only getting partial relro via full relro we had on 2.8
    Can you, please, explain? I don't understand. What is relro?

  2. I hadnt finished verifying all the permissions were set correctly
    I'm too, but I install packages, and it runs well last weeks.

  3. The postgres module needs to be implemented

  4. cosmetics, I was planning on renaming it from "ossec-hids-client" to "ossec-hids-agent"
    Will do that.

  5. conditional logic for the systemd service files.
    I was planed do this, when request Add systemd unit files for OSSEC Server and Agent #619 will be merged. Install.sh also need to be edited.

  6. Letters in a version field (2.9.0b3). This is going to look "newer" than "2.9.0" on an upgrade event.

  7. the authd certificate generation step isnt complete

  8. the geoip or other conditionals are better used via "with_XXXX" instead of a binary 0/1 case. This is so it can be passed in as a build time argument with mock or rpmbuild
    Will fix that.

  9. is there some reason you dropped the rules.d & decoders.d directories?
    Default config of ossec do not contain rules.d & decoders.d directories. So, rpm will create this dirs, but use default config, nothing will work. I'm plan add it in next pull requests simultaneously in ossec.conf, install.sh and specs.

@opoplawski
Copy link

This seems to have stalled. Any movement here?

@atomicturtle
Copy link
Member

Yeah, its living here at the moment as part of the QA step I'm using to tag the RC builds: http://updates.atomicorp.com/channels/source/ossec-hids/ossec-hids.spec

BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}
Vendor: http://www.ossec.net
Packager: Daniil Svetlov <daniil@svetlov.pro>
Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/groupadd /usr/sbin/useradd
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we could use macro %{_sbindir} instead of hardcode /usr/sbin here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants