On Mon, Aug 31, 2015, at 07:52, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > Leo Famulari (2015-08-26 20:16 +0300) wrote: > > [...] > > >> + (description "Python-LLFUSE is a set of Python bindings for the low > >> level > >> +FUSE API. It requires at least FUSE 2.8.0 and supports both Python 2.x > >> and > >> +3.x.") > > > > IMHO mentioning a version of fuse is not needed. And IIUC this package > > provides a python3 library, so I would also remove "supports both …". > > +1
Done. > > >> + (home-page "https://bitbucket.org/nikratio/python-llfuse/") > >> + (license lgpl2.0))) > > > > It should be 'lgpl2.0+' as the LICENSE file says "or (at your option) > > any later version". > > Yes. Leo, could you also check a few source file headers to confirm > they either have the “or later” clause, or do not specify any version? The LLFUSE source files are all "LGPL" without mention of a version. The LICENSE file is the only place where the version is specified (LGPL 2.0+). However, I also found that an included source file from another project (underscore.js) is MIT/expat. > > Also I think it is better to put this package in "python.scm" as it just > > contains some general python library. But I'm not an expert here, so > > better wait for comments of other people. > > Agreed. > > > But I would name it 'python-llfuse' and would also add 'python2-llfuse' > > package (bug again: I didn't make a single python package). > > Right. See the convention described at > <https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Python-Modules.html>. Done. > Leo, could you send an updated patch? Forthcoming...