[PATCH] [RHEL] Make new 0.1.17 release
Simon Lukasik
isimluk at fedoraproject.org
Tue May 13 08:37:22 UTC 2014
On 05/12/2014 10:03 PM, Shawn Wells wrote:
>
> On 5/9/14, 2:04 PM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Shawn Wells" <shawn at redhat.com>
>>> To: scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
>>> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 6:03:20 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RHEL] Make new 0.1.17 release
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/9/14, 10:24 AM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "David Smith"<dsmith at secure-innovations.net>
>>>>>> To: "SCAP Security Guide"<scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 4:44:14 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RHEL] Make new 0.1.17 release
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Totally agreed on the need for the update; ack + thanks!
>>>> Thank you, David. Pushed to master. New tarball & EPEL build to come
>>>> shortly.
>>> Jan, would you be able to document (even informally) the various steps?
>>> While only extremely limited people have access to cut RPMs, it'd be
>>> good to document things.
>> Sure thing (should I forgot some item - doing them on per moment basis
>> when realized forgot to do some of them, will re-iterate later).
>>
>> Upstream process:
>> * update main scap-security-guide.spec file
>> (scap-security-guide/scap-security-guide.spec)
>> with new version (value of "redhatssgversion" version variable).
>> Ensure
>> the Release: field contains 1%{?dist} (1 as release version). Add
>> particular
>> changelog entry (possibly verify for & fix whitespace noise)
>> * build & test the content (i.e. run 'make', 'make srpm', 'make rpm')
>> to verify
>> it builds successfully. Also try to scan some systems with selected
>> profiles to see
>> it the content works
>> * if it works, "make clean" in the git repository to start with clean
>> table.
>> Make the source tarball via "make tarball". Upload the tarball to
>> repos.ssgproject.org.
>>
>> EPEL process:
>> * file-in new EPEL-6 bugzilla (Summary = "Upgrade scap-security-guide
>> package to scap-security-guide-X.Y.Z")
>> Note: That bugzilla is required later when creating Bodhi update
>> request. See below.
>> Note#2: It would be created automa{g,t}ically once the "latest
>> upstream source tarball checking Red Hat
>> Bugzilla functionality" would realize there's is new source
>> tarball available. But since we wan't
>> immediate upgrade, we create that bug manually.
>>
>> * take that bugzilla (state change NEW => ASSIGNED)
>> * clone the scap-security-guide git repository via fedpkg tool (as
>> documented in:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Import.2C_Commit.2Cand_Build_Your_Package
>>
>>
>> section "Check out the module" and later ones). Split into coins
>> for our case it means:
>>
>> $ fedpkg clone scap-security-guide
>> $ cd scap-security-guide/
>> * ensure to change the git branch from master/ to origin/el6 via
>> 'switch-branch' fedpkg's option
>> (this ensures the changes will be actually committed into EPEL-6
>> branch, and not into the master,
>> IOW F-21 branch, which we don't want). To see the list of available
>> branches, issue the following:
>>
>> $ fedpkg switch-branch -l
>> Locals:
>> * master
>> Remotes:
>> origin/el6
>> origin/epel7
>> origin/f18
>> origin/f19
>> origin/f20
>> origin/master
>>
>> To switch to el6 branch, issue:
>>
>> $ fedpkg switch-branch el6
>> Branch el6 set up to track remote branch el6 from origin.
>>
>> command. Now it's possible actually to see the actual content of
>> EPEL-6 branch:
>>
>> $ ls
>> scap-security-guide.spec sources
>>
>> scap-security-guide.spec is the SPEC file used for build of
>> EPEL-6's rpm, sources
>> text file contains md5sum of scap-security-guide tarball, which
>> will be build during
>> SRPM / RPM build.
>>
>> * to refresh both of them (*.spec & content of source) at once, it's
>> possible to create source
>> RPM package & import it into fedpkg.
>>
>> Two important notes to mention here:
>>
>> - The spec file needs to be the updated one => it's necessary to
>> update the actual epel-6 one
>> with changes from upstream one or replace the epel-6 one with
>> upstream one (the latter is still
>> possible because as of right now there aren't epel-6 downstream
>> specific patches that woulnd't
>> be present in upstream already. But should there be such changes in
>> the future, the epel-6 spec
>> should be updated to include changes from upstream spec but
>> simultaneously to keep epel-6 custom
>> patches. IOW just replacing epel-6's spec with upstream's one
>> wouldn't work, but manual changes
>> would be necessary).
>>
>> - The new source tarball needs to be the last one uploaded to
>> repos.ssgproject.org (so md5sum
>> would match during package build).
>>
>> This means:
>> * start with clean /rpmbuild directory structure
>> * download latest tarball from repos.ssgproject.org into
>> /rpmbuild/SOURCES
>> * place the modified epel-6 spec file into /rpmbuild/SPECS
>> * build the source rpm (result will be in /rpmbuild/SRPMS)
>>
>> * return back to fedpkg & import the SRPM created in previous steps:
>>
>> $ fedpkg import path_to_srpm
>>
>> This will change content of 'sources' file (include new md5sum) &
>> update scap-security-guide.spec.
>> $ git status
>>
>> to see what will get committed.
>>
>> $ git commit
>>
>> to confirm the changes. The commit message should contain the string:
>>
>> "Resolves: rh bz# id_of_the_epel_6_bug_we_created_before"
>>
>> in point #1 of the EPEL process section.
>>
>> Make scratch build to see the uploaded content (spec + tarball)
>> would actually build in the Koji
>> build system via:
>>
>> $ fedpkg scratch-build --srpm path_to_srpm_created_locally_before
>>
>> Note: scratch-build to work with actually committed git repository
>> content, it requires the
>> new content to be already "git push-ed" to the repository. But
>> since we want to verify if the
>> content would build yet before pushing changes into the EPEL-6
>> repository, we need to provide
>> the --srpm option pointing fedpkg to the local source RPM package
>> we have created one step before.
>>
>> Once the scratch build passes (visible in Koji web interface, or
>> also on command line), we can push
>> the changes to git repository via:
>>
>> $ git push origin el6
>>
>> After successful push, our / latest push should be visible at (in
>> el6 branch)
>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/scap-security-guide.git/
>>
>> Now it's safe (scratch build succeeded & we pushed the changes to
>> the Fedora's git) to build real
>> new package via:
>>
>> $ fedpkg build
>>
>> This again generates clickable link, at which it's possible to see
>> the progress / result of the build.
>> Once the new package build in Koji finishes successfully, we flip
>> the previously created
>> EPEL-6 bug to MODIFIED (ASSIGNED => MODIFIED) and mention the new
>> package name-version-release
>> in the "Fixed in Version:" field of that bug.
>>
>> * Having new build available, it's necessary to schedule new Bodhi
>> update (something like
>> advisory to be tied with new packages). I am using web UI:
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/new/
>>
>> but there's command-line interface too (see [1] for further details).
>>
>> Add New Update screen is shown (containing following fields / items):
>>
>> Add New Update
>> --------------
>> Package: name-version-release of Koji build goes here (e.g.
>> scap-security-guide-0.1-16.el6)
>> Type: select one of - bugfix
>> /* intended for updates fixing bugs */
>> enhancement
>> /* intended for updates adding new features */
>> security
>> /* intended for updates fixing security flaws */
>> newpackage
>> /* intended for updates introducing new RPM packages */
>> options
>> Request: select 'testing' option of - testing
>> /* intended for updates that should reach -testing repository first
>> (before reaching -stable) */
>> stable
>> /* intended for updates that should go into -stable directly - maybe
>> for critical security updates,
>> other
>> package updates should be pushed to -testing repository first, then
>> only after some time
>> into
>> -stable yum repository */
>> none
>> /* not sure what's this one intended for */
>>
>> Bugs: provide previously created EPEL-6 RH BZ# id here
>> [v] Close bugs when update is stable
>>
>> /* Keep this checkbox checked in. It will automagically close the
>> created
>> EPEL-6 bug, when the particular build is pushed to -stable yum
>> repository */
>>
>> Notes: Describe the changes in this text field (i.e. which bugs
>> got fixed, which new functionality got introduced etc.)
>> The content of this field appear in the advisory (sent
>> on fedora-package-announce mailing list), when the build is pushed to
>> -stable.
>>
>> Suggest Reboot: [] /* should the package
>> update require reboot after install */
>> Enable karma automatism: [v] /* if to use the karma
>> threshold the updates push system to use to decide if the build
>> should be pushed to
>> -stable channel or not */
>> Threshold for pushing to -stable: [3] /* minimum threshold
>> / level of karma build needs to obtain from package testers to be
>> able to push it
>> into -stable channel */
>> Threshold for unpushing [-3]: /* lower bound for
>> negative karma, which is a sign for the push system to move the
>> package from the
>> -testing repository. IOW the build has received so much negative
>> karma /
>> experiences, it's not usable even for the -testing repository and
>> should be
>> rebuilt */
>>
>> Once all the information is filed, click "Save Update".
>> This will generate automated email about that build being pushed
>> to -testing. After some time at the same day (depending on TZ)
>> the build is pushed to -testing repository.
>>
>> * The maintainer should check Bodhi pages for that update for positive
>> / negative karma / comments. If the build has reached positive karma >= 3
>> it can be pushed to -stable (if it hasn't reached positive karma
>> >= 3 in 7 days, it will be pushed to -stable - 7 days is considered
>> sufficient
>> period). If there are signs of negative karma, the build should be
>> either unpushed / deleted & new one made.
>>
>> * After 7 days the build can be pushed to -stable (under assumption it
>> didn't reach positive karma >= 3 sooner), meaning in next day or
>> two it's reachable via yum subscribed to epel-6 repository directly.
>>
>> * And the whole process goes back to the first item.
>> Hopefully I have covered all the points. Should I realize there's
>> missing some yet, will clarify later.
>
> Whoa. This is great.
Yes. Thank You, Jan!
>
> I've blocked off ~10 hours between now and Fri to catchup on SSG
> activities. I'll spend some of that converting this into DocBook and
> merging into our Developers Guide. It'll give us a solid starting point,
> and should make future edits easier. Will report back Fri on progress
> (+hopefully patches).
I believe that the el6 branch from Fedora repository should be dropped
once/when/if the scap-security-guide is released through standard Red
Hat Enterprise channel.
In the meantime, I have updated epel7 branch with the newest content and
I have one observation to the ssg release process. Currently we have two
latest releases:
scap-security-guide-0.1.5.tar.gz
- this contains latest fedora stuff
scap-security-guide-0.1.17.tar.gz
- this contains latest rhel stuff
Note that Fedora and EPEL7 packages ship combined content from both
packages. The reasoning behind is that with scap-workbench on your
fedora box you may want to use RHEL6 content to assess servers in the
basement.
However, I believe it is not sound project governance to release
tarballs of the same name with the different content. I would love to
see either solution:
(1) Release everything in one tarball named scap-security-guide.
Timely releases would be plus. Or
(2) Rename Fedora tarball to scap-security-guide-extras
If you could tag (`git tag` on particular commit) your releases in git
it would be also helpful.
Many thanks!
--
Simon Lukasik
Security Technologies
More information about the scap-security-guide
mailing list