https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
Bug ID: 1028206 Summary: Review Request: tayga - nat64 implementation for linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: william@firstyear.id.au QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://firstyear.id.au/media/tayga.spec SRPM URL: http://firstyear.id.au/media/tayga-0.9.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Tayga is a NAT64 implementation for linux in userland. With the support of a DNS64 server (Such as bind) it allows the translation of ipv4 addresses into an ipv6 prefix. This allows a network to be ipv6 only, which still maintaining contact with the ipv4 internet. Fedora Account System Username: firstyear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
William Brown william@firstyear.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Wouldn't it be better to have the selinux policy sent to selinux-policy package ?
I will take a look at the package, as the topic interest me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Ok, so looking at the policy, it is just the label of the tayga binary, and the ifup/ifdown stuff are highly depend on the state of initscript, so i think the binary should be separated from theses two part.
I think it would maybe be better to have it integrated with systemd somehow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #3 from William Brown william@firstyear.id.au --- Sorry about the delay getting back to you.
Initially, the policy should be in this package, and once it's "stable" I'll send to to selinux-policy.
What do you mean separate the binary from ifup/ifdown?
How do you suggest to integrate with systemd? I'm not sure that it supports network interfaces ... unless you mean to suggest that we run nat64 as a service over a network interface? (Given this doesn't create an interface with an IP that is certainly an option to make services such as tayga@.service).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to William Brown from comment #3)
Sorry about the delay getting back to you.
Initially, the policy should be in this package, and once it's "stable" I'll send to to selinux-policy.
You should open a new bug under selinux-policy and tell the maintainer that a new package will need some works.
If they deny to adopt, then it's time ship it in this package.
How do you suggest to integrate with systemd? I'm not sure that it supports network interfaces ... unless you mean to suggest that we run nat64 as a service over a network interface? (Given this doesn't create an interface with an IP that is certainly an option to make services such as tayga@.service).
It should support it well.
%{_mandir}/man5/%{name}.conf.5.gz %{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.8.gz
-->
%{_mandir}/man5/%{name}.conf.5* %{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.8*
Remove %defattr(-,root,root,0755)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #5 from William Brown william@firstyear.id.au --- I will take into account all these suggestions. Thinking about it, openvpn does something similar with @.service, so I will rewrite my scripts for this and will resubmit for review soon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #6 from William Brown william@firstyear.id.au --- Rewritten, rewrote selinux policy and tested on my system.
Both URLs have been updated.
Please review. I will have the SELinux policy reviewed on the SELinux mailing list.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #7 from William Brown william@firstyear.id.au --- https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/firstyear/tayga/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #8 from William Brown william@firstyear.id.au --- Updated with reviewed SELinux policy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
William Brown william@firstyear.id.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|misc@zarb.org |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
Ingvar Hagelund ingvar@linpro.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ingvar@linpro.no
--- Comment #9 from Ingvar Hagelund ingvar@linpro.no --- Is this review request for tayga dead? William, are you still willing to wrap tayga? If not, I could have a look at it.
br,
Ingvar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
--- Comment #10 from William Brown william@firstyear.id.au --- I'm not interested in this any more. You may take it over, and I'm happy to advise however via email.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
Ingvar Hagelund ingvar@linpro.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #11 from Ingvar Hagelund ingvar@linpro.no --- New src.rpm here: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/tayga/tayga-0.9.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Spec here: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/tayga/tayga.spec
I wrote this from scratch, so it resembles William's package only by coincidence :-)
It seems like the selinux policy is now included upstream, so while making this package, I skipped selinux. I also skipped the automatic adding of network stuff. The binary itself sets up its own interface. Adding skeleton config for routing seems over-engineering to me.
Ingvar
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i@cicku.me
--- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- Please open a new bug and mark this one as DUPLICATE. Do not reuse existing bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206
Ingvar Hagelund ingvar@linpro.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2015-09-17 02:47:28
--- Comment #13 from Ingvar Hagelund ingvar@linpro.no --- Opening a new request #1263941, and closing this as duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1263941 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org