Bug 2350914

Summary:	Review Request: apfsprogs - Experimental APFS tools for Linux
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Davide Cavalca <davide>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Neal Gompa <ngompa13>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	ngompa13, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	AutomationTriaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
URL:	https://github.com/linux-apfs/apfsprogs
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	---
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2025-12-22 00:45:26 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	201449

Description Davide Cavalca 2025-03-08 22:43:26 UTC

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/apfsprogs/apfsprogs.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/apfsprogs/apfsprogs-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm

Description:
Apfsprogs is a suite of userland software to work with the Apple File System on
Linux.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca

Comment 1 Davide Cavalca 2025-03-08 22:43:29 UTC

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130009330

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2025-03-09 14:40:31 UTC

Taking this package.

Davide, your files are returning HTTP 403 errors.

Comment 3 Davide Cavalca 2025-03-10 03:36:26 UTC

Should be fixed now, the directory on fedorapeople was missing the execute bit for some reason

Comment 4 Neal Gompa 2025-03-10 18:20:31 UTC

Review notes:

* Package follows Fedora packaging guidelines
* Package builds and installs correctly
* Package licensing is mostly correct and provided license files are installed
  + I see code from zlib, wpa_supplicant, and some other vendored projects in here with licenses other than GPL-2.0-only. These need to be enumerated in the license tag and bundled provides where relevant.
* No serious issues from rpmlint

Please address the licensing related issues and then we should be good to go.

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 15:32:45 UTC

Hello,
I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been
reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package
builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer.

If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my
apologies, feel free to close it.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 15:38:45 UTC

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9819840
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2350914-apfsprogs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09819840-apfsprogs/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 7 Neal Gompa 2025-11-21 09:17:08 UTC

Can you address my feedback in comment 4?

Comment 8 Package Review 2025-12-22 00:45:26 UTC

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.