Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 822046 - Review Request: exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation
Summary: Review Request: exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CANTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: Dan Mashal
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-Legal
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-05-16 07:04 UTC by Vasiliy Glazov
Modified: 2017-01-03 18:37 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-07-10 00:41:41 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Vasiliy Glazov 2012-05-16 07:04:09 UTC 
Spec URL:
https://github.com/RussianFedora/fuse-exfat/blob/master/fuse-exfat.spec
https://github.com/RussianFedora/exfat-utils/blob/master/exfat-utils.spec

SRPM URL:
http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/fuse-exfat/0.9.7/1.fc17.R/src/fuse-exfat-0.9.7-1.fc17.R.src.rpm
http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/exfat-utils/0.9.7/1.fc17.R/src/exfat-utils-0.9.7-1.fc17.R.src.rpm

Description:
This driver is the first free exFAT file system implementation with write
support. exFAT is a simple file system created by Microsoft. It is intended
to replace FAT32 removing some of it's limitations. exFAT is a standard FS
for SDXC memory cards.

I want be maintainer of this package in Fedora. But I need a sponsor.
Comment 1 Ralf Corsepius 2012-05-16 08:01:42 UTC 
Please split this review request into 2 separate ones - One per package.
Comment 2 Vasiliy Glazov 2012-05-16 08:10:13 UTC 
OK
This for fuse-exfat package - Free exFAT file system implementation.

Spec URL:
https://github.com/RussianFedora/fuse-exfat/blob/master/fuse-exfat.spec

SRPM URL:
http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/fuse-exfat/0.9.7/1.fc17.R/src/fuse-exfat-0.9.7-1.fc17.R.src.rpm

Description:
This driver is the first free exFAT file system implementation with write
support. exFAT is a simple file system created by Microsoft. It is intended
to replace FAT32 removing some of it's limitations. exFAT is a standard FS
for SDXC memory cards.

I want be maintainer of this package in Fedora. But I need a sponsor.

Second review request here for exfat-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822049
Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-05-16 16:50:00 UTC 
Blocking FE-Legal until I can get RH to review this situation.
Comment 4 Vasiliy Glazov 2012-05-17 08:48:05 UTC 
I'll wait.
Comment 5 Dan Mashal 2012-05-31 03:53:33 UTC 
spot any luck?
Comment 6 Dan Mashal 2012-06-18 09:08:51 UTC 
any update on this spot?
Comment 7 Dan Mashal 2012-07-02 14:06:12 UTC 
Spoke with spot on IRC, still awaiting RedHat Legal.
Comment 8 Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-07-10 00:41:41 UTC 
Upon review, implementations of exfat are not permitted in Fedora. Sorry Dan.
Comment 9 Dan Mashal 2012-07-10 01:15:41 UTC 
Thanks for your reply spot.
Comment 10 Vasiliy Glazov 2012-07-10 06:26:38 UTC 
Thanks to all.
Comment 11 Adam Goode 2015-10-04 04:17:17 UTC 
Is this still forbidden in Fedora?

If so, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items should be updated.
Comment 12 Aaron Franke 2016-12-31 20:01:34 UTC 
What is the reason for why exFAT implementations are not supported? The package itself is free software. Other Microsoft filesystems such as FAT32 and NTFS can and have already been implemented. I don't see why this can't be included.
Comment 13 Tom "spot" Callaway 2017-01-03 18:37:31 UTC 
(In reply to Aaron Franke from comment #12)
> What is the reason for why exFAT implementations are not supported? The
> package itself is free software. Other Microsoft filesystems such as FAT32
> and NTFS can and have already been implemented. I don't see why this can't
> be included.

Unfortunately, I can't answer that question. I cannot say "this thing right here is the reason", because that potentially exposes Red Hat to additional risk. I know that is frustrating, and I'm sorry.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.