Fedora Official Package #171
Comments
|
Hi Chris
thanks for working on the package.
The package name is up to you, I do not have a preference.
Oleg
…On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Christian Glombek ***@***.*** > wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I'd like to get coturn into fedora proper. I saw it's also the first issue
in the TODO file (although that was last updated 2yrs ago, so not sure how
important this is for you).
I have forked rpm/turnserver.spec to https://github.com/
LorbusChris/coturn-rpm and made a few rather little changes.
Builds in COPR live here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lorbus/turnserver/monitor/
I will begin the process of becoming a Fedora Packager and submit the spec
for review by Fedora QA next month, but I wanted to offer all of you devs
the opportunity to review the spec beforehand.
I will happily upstream any changes made to the spec to this repo, however
eventually the spec will live in the fedora repos (ie.
src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coturn or src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/turnserver
)
I have one remaining question (that will also need answering by fedora QA,
but I'd like to hear your opinion nevertheless):
Would you prefer the package name be coturn or turnserver?
Cheers, Chris
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#171>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFq2UJY-IPIIIJXnHaYoUZD_56RZwrqJks5sa0yfgaJpZM4O_Ors>
.
|
|
Created a Package Review Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491492 |
|
Looks great, thanks !
Oleg
…On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Christian Glombek ***@***.*** > wrote:
Created a Package Review Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
show_bug.cgi?id=1491492
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#171 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFq2UG5zz2FSlAU0EjzKM-h_dX019VQbks5siHghgaJpZM4O_Ors>
.
|
|
The Review Request has been updated with a new spec and build. |
|
Is this still being worked on? |
|
@DudleyDursley Not currently, but I still plan to pick this up at some point. (I just need to do another review of the specfile myself, and then ping the assigned Fedora packager to do the same. Hopefully I'll find some time for that during the coming holidays.) |
|
Just wanna say this would be very useful for anyone running a Synapse + Coturn duo on top of Fedora or in a Fedora container, i hope i'm not alone doing this 😃. Synapse is already in the official repos. I currently maintain & use a Coturn container image on top of Fedora 28, would like to bump it onto F29, but didn't find a package for F29 that looks maintained. (The Copr repo i use for F28 looks unmaintained too, now that i checked 😃.) |
|
@jistr that's great to hear! I'll try to get a rebuild for f29 done before end of year :) |
|
@LorbusChris Thanks! No pressure though, first and foremost have nice holidays 😃. |
|
I'd really appreciate an updated package for Fedora 29, too. The current one is conflicting with the version of mariadb_lib in F29. |
|
@jistr @Sesivany a new build is available on copr. I updated the BZ ticket, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491492 |
|
@LorbusChris Thanks! I'll update my Coturn container image at Quay.io. |
|
I installed coturn from your Copr repo, but the service failed to start with the following error: coturn.service: Job coturn.service/start failed with result 'dependency' What could it be? I'm running it in an LXC-based VPS if it has any influence on it. |
|
@Sesivany what package version do you run? It should be 4.5.1.0-2 ...but maybe the init service is failing. Could you post the output of |
|
Seems like some problem with initial certificate generation: My coturn.conf was set up according to this tutorial (no-TLS variant for the start): https://help.nextcloud.com/t/howto-setup-nextcloud-talk-with-turn-server/30794 |
|
Thanks! Running Coturn without creating a proper config beforehand doesn't make much sense anyway. I think I'll remove the init service all together and replace it with instructions how to prep a config in the README. Anybody not ok with that? |
|
+1 for manual config. As far as i can imagine, trying to default or autogenerate config for a service like Coturn will end up being either dangerous (proxying whatever for whoever) or useless (not proxying). |
|
coturn v.4.5.1.0 is now in the official Fedora repos! 🎉 I'll do my best to keep the rpm up to date (hopefully I'll get around to update the package to 4.5.1.1 this week :) |
|
Many thanks for your hard work and efforts!! |
|
Thanks @LorbusChris! I updated the Quay.io container image to Fedora 29 and the latest RPM. |
Hello Everyone,
I'd like to get coturn into fedora proper. I saw it's also the first issue in the TODO file (although that was last updated 2yrs ago, so not sure how important this is for you).
I have forked rpm/turnserver.spec to https://github.com/LorbusChris/coturn-rpm and made a few rather little changes.
Builds in COPR live here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lorbus/turnserver/monitor/
I will begin the process of becoming a Fedora Packager and submit the spec for review by Fedora QA next month, but I wanted to offer all of you devs the opportunity to review the spec beforehand.
I will happily upstream any changes made to the spec to this repo, however eventually the spec will live in the fedora repos (ie. src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coturn or src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/turnserver)
I have one remaining question (that will also need answering by fedora QA, but I'd like to hear your opinion nevertheless):
Would you prefer the package name be coturn or turnserver?
Cheers, Chris
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: