[PATCH] Fix paths and requires in spec file.

[Spencer R. Shimko]

The spec file was dropping things in /usr/local.  Shift it to
/usr/share/doc/scap-security-guide-<version>.

Update Requires and BuildRequires based on perusal of apps leveraged
during build.

Signed-off-by: Spencer Shimko 
---
 scap-security-guide.spec |   15 +++++++++------
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scap-security-guide.spec b/scap-security-guide.spec
index 55e22a5..0867fb1 100644
--- a/scap-security-guide.spec
+++ b/scap-security-guide.spec
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ BuildRoot:      %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)

BuildArch:	%{arch}

-BuildRequires:  /bin/rm, /bin/mkdir, /bin/cp
-Requires:       /bin/bash, /bin/date, /usr/bin/oscap
+BuildRequires:  coreutils, libxslt, expat, python
+Requires:       coreutils, openscap

%description
 The scap-security-guide project provides security configuration guidance in
@@ -28,13 +28,12 @@ requirements and specific implementation guidance.
 %build
 cd RHEL6 && make dist

-
 %install
 rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 #make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
+mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/

-cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
+cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/

%clean
@@ -43,10 +42,14 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
 %defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
-%attr(0755,root,root) /usr/local/scap-security-guide/
+%attr(0755,root,root) %{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/

%changelog
+* Tue Aug 28  2012 Spencer Shimko  1.0-4
+- Move away from using /usr/local for installation dir.
+- Fix BuildRequires and Requires.
+
 * Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
 - Modified install section, made description more concise.

[Shawn Wells]

On 8/28/12 2:17 PM, Spencer Shimko wrote:
> The spec file was dropping things in /usr/local.  Shift it to
> /usr/share/doc/scap-security-guide-<version>.
>
> Update Requires and BuildRequires based on perusal of apps leveraged
> during build.
> Signed-off-by: Spencer Shimko
>
> scap-security-guide.spec |   15 +++++++++------
>   1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scap-security-guide.spec b/scap-security-guide.spec
> index 55e22a5..0867fb1 100644
> --- a/scap-security-guide.spec
> +++ b/scap-security-guide.spec
> @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ BuildRoot:      %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
>
> BuildArch:	%{arch}
>
> -BuildRequires:  /bin/rm, /bin/mkdir, /bin/cp
> -Requires:       /bin/bash, /bin/date, /usr/bin/oscap
> +BuildRequires:  coreutils, libxslt, expat, python
> +Requires:       coreutils, openscap
>
> %description
>   The scap-security-guide project provides security configuration guidance in
> @@ -28,13 +28,12 @@ requirements and specific implementation guidance.
>   %build
>   cd RHEL6 && make dist
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> #make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
>
> -cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> +cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
>
> %clean
> @@ -43,10 +42,14 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> %files
>   %defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
> -%attr(0755,root,root) /usr/local/scap-security-guide/
> +%attr(0755,root,root) %{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
>
> %changelog
> +* Tue Aug 28  2012 Spencer Shimko  1.0-4
> +- Move away from using /usr/local for installation dir.
> +- Fix BuildRequires and Requires.
> Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
> Modified install section, made description more concise.

In preparing SSG for packaging into EPEL (and eventually RHEL), one of 
the fedora guys reviewed our RPM build and dropped suggestions on making 
everything FHS compliant. They recommended things be put into 
/usr/share/lib, but I agree that /usr/share/doc is sane given the nature 
of the content. Reference 
https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/107

Jamie - Care to weigh in? Will we get smacked around by the EPEL 
packaging guys by putting this in /usr/share/doc?

[Jeffrey Blank]

I think you also want openscap-utils as a BuildRequires (or for anywhere
we expect the oscap command line to be available).

Technically, we could install the files (and use them with a 3rd party
SCAP scanning tool) without requiring openscap or openscap-utils, though
they are definitely required for the build.  I do not know if it is
proper to put them as Requires if they are not a hard requirement,
though we are definitely assuming that many users would want them in
order to run the content!

On 08/28/2012 02:50 PM, Shawn Wells wrote:
> On 8/28/12 2:17 PM, Spencer Shimko wrote:
> > The spec file was dropping things in /usr/local.  Shift it to
> > /usr/share/doc/scap-security-guide-<version>.
> >
> > Update Requires and BuildRequires based on perusal of apps leveraged
> > during build.
> > Signed-off-by: Spencer Shimko
> >
> > scap-security-guide.spec |   15 +++++++++------
> >   1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/scap-security-guide.spec b/scap-security-guide.spec
> > index 55e22a5..0867fb1 100644
> > --- a/scap-security-guide.spec
> > +++ b/scap-security-guide.spec
> > @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ BuildRoot:      %(mktemp -ud
> > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
> >     BuildArch:    %{arch}
> >   -BuildRequires:  /bin/rm, /bin/mkdir, /bin/cp
> > -Requires:       /bin/bash, /bin/date, /usr/bin/oscap
> > +BuildRequires:  coreutils, libxslt, expat, python
> > +Requires:       coreutils, openscap
> >     %description
> >   The scap-security-guide project provides security configuration
> > guidance in
> > @@ -28,13 +28,12 @@ requirements and specific implementation guidance.
> >   %build
> >   cd RHEL6 && make dist
> >
> > %install
> >   rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> >   #make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> > +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> >   -cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> > +cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> >       %clean
> > @@ -43,10 +42,14 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> >     %files
> >   %defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
> > -%attr(0755,root,root) /usr/local/scap-security-guide/
> > +%attr(0755,root,root) %{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> >       %changelog
> > +* Tue Aug 28  2012 Spencer Shimko  1.0-4
> > +- Move away from using /usr/local for installation dir.
> > +- Fix BuildRequires and Requires.
> > Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
> > Modified install section, made description more concise.
>
> In preparing SSG for packaging into EPEL (and eventually RHEL), one of
> the fedora guys reviewed our RPM build and dropped suggestions on making
> everything FHS compliant. They recommended things be put into
> /usr/share/lib, but I agree that /usr/share/doc is sane given the nature
> of the content. Reference
> https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/107
>
> Jamie - Care to weigh in? Will we get smacked around by the EPEL
> packaging guys by putting this in /usr/share/doc?
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide

[Spencer R. Shimko]

On 8/28/12 7:47 PM, "Jeffrey Blank"  wrote:
> I think you also want openscap-utils as a BuildRequires (or for anywhere
> we expect the oscap command line to be available).

Makes sense to me I'll submit an updated patch this morning.
> Technically, we could install the files (and use them with a 3rd party
> SCAP scanning tool) without requiring openscap or openscap-utils, though
> they are definitely required for the build.  I do not know if it is
> proper to put them as Requires if they are not a hard requirement,
> though we are definitely assuming that many users would want them in
> order to run the content!

Also makes sense to strip it out of the Requires.  But now I'm down to
zero deps for installation and I've had bad experiences in the past (e.g.
Vmware's RPMs that, when installed from a kickstart, ended up on the
system before coreutils and things broke spectacularly.  I'll add
"filesystem" as a dependency so we can expect /usr/share/doc to exist.

As a heads up I'm also working on the SELinux content (ticket #99) and
hope to have a patch submitted today or tomorrow.

Thanks,
--Spencer
> On 08/28/2012 02:50 PM, Shawn Wells wrote:
> > On 8/28/12 2:17 PM, Spencer Shimko wrote:
> > > The spec file was dropping things in /usr/local.  Shift it to
> > > /usr/share/doc/scap-security-guide-<version>.
> > >
> > > Update Requires and BuildRequires based on perusal of apps leveraged
> > > during build.
> > > Signed-off-by: Spencer Shimko
> > >
> > > scap-security-guide.spec |   15 +++++++++------
> > >   1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scap-security-guide.spec b/scap-security-guide.spec
> > > index 55e22a5..0867fb1 100644
> > > --- a/scap-security-guide.spec
> > > +++ b/scap-security-guide.spec
> > > @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ BuildRoot:      %(mktemp -ud
> > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
> > >     BuildArch:    %{arch}
> > >   -BuildRequires:  /bin/rm, /bin/mkdir, /bin/cp
> > > -Requires:       /bin/bash, /bin/date, /usr/bin/oscap
> > > +BuildRequires:  coreutils, libxslt, expat, python
> > > +Requires:       coreutils, openscap
> > >     %description
> > >   The scap-security-guide project provides security configuration
> > > guidance in
> > > @@ -28,13 +28,12 @@ requirements and specific implementation guidance.
> > >   %build
> > >   cd RHEL6 && make dist
> > >
> > > %install
> > >   rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > >   #make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > > -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> > > +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> > >   -cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> > > +cp -r RHEL6/dist/*
> > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> > >       %clean
> > > @@ -43,10 +42,14 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > >     %files
> > >   %defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
> > > -%attr(0755,root,root) /usr/local/scap-security-guide/
> > > +%attr(0755,root,root) %{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> > >       %changelog
> > > +* Tue Aug 28  2012 Spencer Shimko  1.0-4
> > > +- Move away from using /usr/local for installation dir.
> > > +- Fix BuildRequires and Requires.
> > > Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
> > > Modified install section, made description more concise.
> >
> > In preparing SSG for packaging into EPEL (and eventually RHEL), one of
> > the fedora guys reviewed our RPM build and dropped suggestions on making
> > everything FHS compliant. They recommended things be put into
> > /usr/share/lib, but I agree that /usr/share/doc is sane given the nature
> > of the content. Reference
> > https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/107
> >
> > Jamie - Care to weigh in? Will we get smacked around by the EPEL
> > packaging guys by putting this in /usr/share/doc?
> > _______________________________________________
> > scap-security-guide mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
>
> scap-security-guide mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide

[Spencer R. Shimko]

On 8/28/12 2:50 PM, "Shawn Wells"  wrote:
> On 8/28/12 2:17 PM, Spencer Shimko wrote:
> > The spec file was dropping things in /usr/local.  Shift it to
> > /usr/share/doc/scap-security-guide-<version>.
> >
> > Update Requires and BuildRequires based on perusal of apps leveraged
> > during build.
> > Signed-off-by: Spencer Shimko
> >
> > scap-security-guide.spec |   15 +++++++++------
> >   1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/scap-security-guide.spec b/scap-security-guide.spec
> > index 55e22a5..0867fb1 100644
> > --- a/scap-security-guide.spec
> > +++ b/scap-security-guide.spec
> > @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ BuildRoot:      %(mktemp -ud
> > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
> >
> > BuildArch:	%{arch}
> >
> > -BuildRequires:  /bin/rm, /bin/mkdir, /bin/cp
> > -Requires:       /bin/bash, /bin/date, /usr/bin/oscap
> > +BuildRequires:  coreutils, libxslt, expat, python
> > +Requires:       coreutils, openscap
> >
> > %description
> >   The scap-security-guide project provides security configuration
> > guidance in
> > @@ -28,13 +28,12 @@ requirements and specific implementation guidance.
> >   %build
> >   cd RHEL6 && make dist
> > %install
> > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > #make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> >
> > -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> > +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> >
> > -cp -r RHEL6/dist/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/%{name}/
> > +cp -r RHEL6/dist/*
> > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> >
> > %clean
> > @@ -43,10 +42,14 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> >
> > %files
> >   %defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
> > -%attr(0755,root,root) /usr/local/scap-security-guide/
> > +%attr(0755,root,root) %{_usr}/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
> >
> > %changelog
> > +* Tue Aug 28  2012 Spencer Shimko  1.0-4
> > +- Move away from using /usr/local for installation dir.
> > +- Fix BuildRequires and Requires.
> > Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
> > Modified install section, made description more concise.
>
> In preparing SSG for packaging into EPEL (and eventually RHEL), one of
> the fedora guys reviewed our RPM build and dropped suggestions on making
> everything FHS compliant. They recommended things be put into
> /usr/share/lib, but I agree that /usr/share/doc is sane given the nature
> of the content. Reference
> https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/107

I considered /usr/lib and /usr/libexec but those are for object files and
helper apps.  Since this RPM only contains XML and HTML files it doesn't
seem like a good fit.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.

Thanks,
--Spencer
> Jamie - Care to weigh in? Will we get smacked around by the EPEL
> packaging guys by putting this in /usr/share/doc?
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide

[Steve Grubb]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:59:30 PM Spencer R. Shimko wrote:
> > > Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
> > > Modified install section, made description more concise.
> >
> > In preparing SSG for packaging into EPEL (and eventually RHEL), one of
> > the fedora guys reviewed our RPM build and dropped suggestions on making
> > everything FHS compliant. They recommended things be put into
> > /usr/share/lib, but I agree that /usr/share/doc is sane given the nature
> > of the content. Reference
> > https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/107
>
> I considered /usr/lib and /usr/libexec but those are for object files and
> helper apps.  Since this RPM only contains XML and HTML files it doesn't
> seem like a good fit.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.

We are talking this over. Give us a little time to come to a decision. We 
might do something like  /usr/share/xml/scap/<policy>  so that apps can have a 
standard location to expect policy.  I'll come back with an official 
recommendation.

-Steve

[Jeffrey Blank]

Sounds good.  And there is other benefit already in Spencer's patch
(with regard to RPM Requires), so I'll give Spencer an ACK unless
someone indicates that they would prefer to wait...

On 08/29/2012 09:44 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:59:30 PM Spencer R. Shimko wrote:
> > > > Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
> > > > Modified install section, made description more concise.
> > >
> > > In preparing SSG for packaging into EPEL (and eventually RHEL), one of
> > > the fedora guys reviewed our RPM build and dropped suggestions on making
> > > everything FHS compliant. They recommended things be put into
> > > /usr/share/lib, but I agree that /usr/share/doc is sane given the nature
> > > of the content. Reference
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/107
> >
> > I considered /usr/lib and /usr/libexec but those are for object files and
> > helper apps.  Since this RPM only contains XML and HTML files it doesn't
> > seem like a good fit.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.
>
> We are talking this over. Give us a little time to come to a decision. We 
> might do something like  /usr/share/xml/scap/<policy>  so that apps can have a 
> standard location to expect policy.  I'll come back with an official 
> recommendation.
>
> -Steve
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide

[Steve Grubb]

On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 01:35:53 PM Jeffrey Blank wrote:
> Sounds good.  And there is other benefit already in Spencer's patch
> (with regard to RPM Requires), so I'll give Spencer an ACK unless
> someone indicates that they would prefer to wait...

We are setting things up so that policy distributed in rpm form can be located 
in /usr/share/xml/scap/<policy-name>. The filesystem rpm will make the 
directory for new installations. But each rpm should make and install xml into 
their own the policy directory.

So, you could have:

/usr/share/xml/scap/ssg
/usr/share/xml/scap/usgcb
/usr/share/xml/scap/stig
/usr/share/xml/scap/nispom

etc...Tools can also now be coded to scan subdirectories to populate dialog 
boxes for policy to use with this layout.

-Steve
> On 08/29/2012 09:44 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:59:30 PM Spencer R. Shimko wrote:
> > > > > Wed Jul 3 2012 Jeffrey Blank  1.0-3
> > > > > Modified install section, made description more concise.
> > > >
> > > > In preparing SSG for packaging into EPEL (and eventually RHEL), one of
> > > > the fedora guys reviewed our RPM build and dropped suggestions on making
> > > > everything FHS compliant. They recommended things be put into
> > > > /usr/share/lib, but I agree that /usr/share/doc is sane given the nature
> > > > of the content. Reference
> > > > https://fedorahosted.org/scap-security-guide/ticket/107
> > >
> > > I considered /usr/lib and /usr/libexec but those are for object files and
> > > helper apps.  Since this RPM only contains XML and HTML files it doesn't
> > > seem like a good fit.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.
> >
> > We are talking this over. Give us a little time to come to a decision. We
> > might do something like  /usr/share/xml/scap/<policy>  so that apps can
> > have a standard location to expect policy.  I'll come back with an
> > official recommendation.