https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Note: These are the Samsung open source userspace components that matche what has been included already in mainline kernel 5.7 and that is already enabled in Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/master/f/kernel-x86_64-fed... Adding FE-Legal in CC so they can check, as the previous exFAT implementations were not possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #2) I'm very confused why an Epoch is needed. Also, why obsolete+provide the FUSE implementation? This does not provide the ability to use exfat in FUSE. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa(a)redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Well, because legal stuff is fun, we need to know what the package name for this utility is going to be, before we can get it cleared. If you can encourage upstream to figure that out ASAP, it would be helpful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Looks like they went with exfatprogs. Let's go ahead and rename the Fedora package accordingly, but we still need to keep this one on a legal hold for the time being. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: exfat-utils |Review Request: exfatprogs |- Userspace utilities for |- Userspace utilities for |exFAT filesystems |exFAT filesystems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Blech, I repeatedly said "libextfat" when I meant "libexfat" :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #13 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10) Good point :D Fixed, I was stuck with the old format. Added, not cleaning the mock buildroot was not a good idea. Fixed, leftovers from some other changes. I actually was planning to build it also for RHEL 7, leaving the option for the user to add DKMS/kmod modules for it. I will add it eventually if needed. Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/exfatprogs.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/exfatprogs-1.0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm - Update to 1.0.2. - Added gcc/make build requirements. - Fixed URL and source URL. - Removed useless require on libexfat and macro in libexfat-devel summary. - Removed ldconfig scriptlet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #15 from Eric Sandeen <esandeen(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I have no strong preferences or opinions re: conflicts/provides/obsoletes/whatever, that's not my strong point at all. So please don't take anything I said there as an imperative. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar(a)redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Eric Sandeen <esandeen(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(tcallawa(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #18 from Eric Sandeen <esandeen(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi spot pls see comment #17, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #20 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Perfect, thank you! @Nael we can proceed in the meanwhile. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13(a)gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #22 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1824156-exfatprogs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libexfat , libexfat-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: exfatprogs-1.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libexfat-1.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libexfat-devel-1.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm exfatprogs-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm exfatprogs-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm exfatprogs-1.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm exfatprogs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace exfatprogs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fsck.exfat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary label.exfat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mkfs.exfat libexfat.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat libexfat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat libexfat.x86_64: W: no-documentation libexfat.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/libexfat/COPYING libexfat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation exfatprogs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace exfatprogs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat exfatprogs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: exfatprogs-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libexfat.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat libexfat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat libexfat.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libexfat.x86_64: W: no-documentation libexfat.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/libexfat/COPYING exfatprogs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> exfatprogs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace exfatprogs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exFAT -> ex Fat, expat, ex-fat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> exfatprogs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fsck.exfat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary label.exfat exfatprogs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mkfs.exfat libexfat-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libexfat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation exfatprogs-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 15 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs/archive/1.0.2/exfatprogs-1.0.2.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e7f14f32dd67601ff42717f432093a400de878774796f6f1684fb9dbf0d499e1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e7f14f32dd67601ff42717f432093a400de878774796f6f1684fb9dbf0d499e1 Requires -------- exfatprogs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libexfat.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libexfat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libexfat-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libexfat(x86-64) libexfat.so.0()(64bit) exfatprogs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): exfatprogs-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- exfatprogs: exfatprogs exfatprogs(x86-64) libexfat: libexfat libexfat(x86-64) libexfat.so.0()(64bit) libexfat-devel: libexfat-devel libexfat-devel(x86-64) exfatprogs-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) exfatprogs-debuginfo exfatprogs-debuginfo(x86-64) exfatprogs-debugsource: exfatprogs-debugsource exfatprogs-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: exfatprogs-1.0.2/configure.ac:23 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1824156 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #24 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thanks for the review. I'm updating to 1.0.3, upstream has disabled building shared libraries: https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs/commit/9d5bb880e3c310012c75f590f... But headers are installed anyway. Shall I revert the relevant commits so we have a shared library again or just remove the library part? I think the library might come handy. I will fix this in the spec file for 1.0.3. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #26 from Eric Sandeen <esandeen(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (to put a finer point on it, I'd drop the whole -devel package; make install does not install headers, they aren't meant for public consumption) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #28 from Eric Sandeen <esandeen(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Cool, thanks - yes I think that's better, if they ever do release a shared library (which TBH would be a little surprising...) easy enough to add the subpackage back. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #30 from Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #27) I would have expected that FE-LEGAL would have made a decision by now given that the 5.7 kernel (with the exfat driver included) has now entered a test day. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #33 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Just saw that Tom is no longer working for Red Hat.. does this change anything regarding the legal approval? He has been removed from CC in this ticket. I would set a needinfo to some address but I wouldn't know who to... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #35 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #34) I get a 404 on that URL, but good to hear. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bcotton(a)redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(bcotton(a)redhat.co | |m) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #38 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- In the meanwhile... any update on the legal side by chance? Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/exfatprogs.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/exfatprogs-1.0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm * Fri Dec 04 2020 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; - 1.0.4-1 - Update to 1.0.4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #40 from Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com&gt; --- OIN Table 10 published today includes exfatprogs. Lifting legal hold. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #43 from Igor Raits <igor.raits(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exfatprogs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-12-28 01:08:38 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-1c309da089 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b83de3a61f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b83de3a61f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-7e23671a4b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component