Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-libacl - POSIX.1e ACLs library wrapper for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235527 ------- Additional Comments From mszpak@xxxxx 2007-04-18 15:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > 1. Is the name right here? According to the guidelines if the upstream has > 'py' in it you can just use that name: (...) > so perhaps pylibacl would be acceptable instead of python-libacl? You are right. I missed a line about an exception. > 2. Upstream doesn't seem to active, but you might ask if they can include > a copy of the GPL with the package. Not a blocker. Ok, I will. > 3. The Source URL should probibly be: > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pylibacl/pylibacl-%{version}.tar.bz2 Changed. > 4. Do you need the > %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) > or does a normal > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > Install files with the correct permissions? I like to define it explicitly, to make sure that strange mask in a system doesn't make a problem (like shared files available only by root). New links: http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/rpms/pylibacl/pylibacl.spec http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/rpms/pylibacl/pylibacl-0.2.1-4.src.rpm Thanks for your reviews -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review