Bug 821184 (fatback) - Review Request: fatback - A tool for recovering files from FAT file systems
Summary: Review Request: fatback - A tool for recovering files from FAT file systems
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: fatback
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michal Ambroz
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-SECLAB
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-05-12 21:36 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2012-08-29 07:43 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2012-08-29 07:43:46 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2012-05-12 21:36:30 UTC
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/fatback.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/fatback-1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm

Project URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fatback/

Description:
Fatback is a forensic tool for undeleting files from Microsoft FAT file
systems. Fatback is different from other undelete tools in that it does
the following:
- Can undelete files automatically
- Supports Long File Names
- Supports FAT12, FAT16, and FAT32
- Powerful interactive mode
- Recursively undeletes deleted directories
- Recovers lost cluster chains
- Works with single partitions or whole disks

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4073158

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop017 SRPMS]$ rpmlint fatback-1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm 
fatback.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undeleting -> unrelenting
fatback.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undelete -> delete
fatback.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undeletes -> deletes
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

[fab@laptop017 x86_64]$ rpmlint fatback-*
fatback.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undeleting -> unrelenting
fatback.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undelete -> delete
fatback.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undeletes -> deletes
fatback.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/fatback-1.3/COPYING
fatback-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/fatback-1.3/getopt.h
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 1 Volker Fröhlich 2012-05-20 21:53:14 UTC
Are you aware of this ticket?

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1906997&group_id=115773&atid=738816

Comment 2 Michal Ambroz 2012-05-20 23:41:29 UTC
Hello Fabian,
I believe there is some legal question about the license of fatback.

Files+licenses:
- getopt.h getopt.c getopt1.c are taken from some version of glibc and GPLv2+ license.
- missing,techinfo.tex - GPLv2+


- install-sh - MIT license 

- pseudo_code, fatback-manual.info, fatback-manual.texi
   Copyright (C) 2000-2001 DoD Computer Forensics Lab This manual and
the Fatback program are for *government and law enforcement use only*.

- rest of the files is not clear what license it has

As it bundles GPLv2 software it is possible that it is infected with the GPLv2 license too, but I doubt so. GPLv2 files is not the core functionality. It would be definitely better to contact the upstream (harbourn@dcfl.gov) and Tom Spot Callaway to bring some light to this question. 

Best regards
Michal Ambroz

Comment 3 Ralf Corsepius 2012-05-21 15:03:51 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Files+licenses:
...
> - missing,techinfo.tex - GPLv2+
These files are utterly outdated. 

As these are bundled default with many autotool based packages and are supposed to be bundled as with autotool based packages, them being GPLv2+ed IIRC was a bug in the (really old and ancient) version of the autotools having been used by this package.

This license issue was fixed later on in later releases of the autotools. Appropriate fix would be to use the versions from later autotools (automake).


This and other observations raise an unpleasant question:
Does this package have an active upstream? The latest date in ChangeLog is from 2001, so my guess would be this package is dead.

Comment 4 Michal Ambroz 2012-05-23 14:55:38 UTC
>Does this package have an active upstream? 
>The latest date in ChangeLog is from 2001, so my guess would be this package is dead.
Let's assume the package is not dead, but it is perfect and stable :).

Comment 5 Ralf Corsepius 2012-05-23 15:04:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Let's assume the package is not dead, but it is perfect and stable :).
Not much of a problem if the Fedora maintainer is willing to cope with the anachronisms a package carries ;)

... This package carries quite a few ...

Comment 6 Michal Ambroz 2012-06-26 01:40:20 UTC
Hello,
I can take a review of this package.
Fabian please have you got any response from the upstream on the licensing questions?

Thank you
Michal Ambroz

Comment 7 Fabian Affolter 2012-08-29 07:43:46 UTC
No, upstream is dead.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.