[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-04 20:31:32 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.1.2-2.fc11|0.1.2-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.1.2-2.fc11 Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-04 20:31:19 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 02:01:56 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 02:02:03 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 14:25:10 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update autoarchive'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8063 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-28 14:26:06 EDT --- autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update autoarchive'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8067 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-27 02:57:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: autoarchive Short Description: Simple backup tool Owners: fab Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-07-28 00:30:15 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835
Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||julian.fed...@googlemail.co
||m
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|julian.fed...@googlemail.co
||m
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com 2009-07-26
14:38:35 EDT ---
rpmlint output of all files is clean:
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc. NEEDSWORK
-Please add COPYING to the doc section
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
-As I said before, you need to include COPYING
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
Notes:
-Your package should BuildRequire: python-devel instead of python
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-07-26 15:11:46
EDT ---
A couple of additional notes - I just sponsored Julian.
(In reply to comment #4)
Notes:
-Your package should BuildRequire: python-devel instead of python
Actually, python-setuptools-devel pulls in python-devel, so that's not a
problem. But it's better to BR it exclusively.
**
(The ./ in front of setup.py is unnecessary when run via python.)
**
I suggest using autoarchive instead of %{name} in the %files section for
consistency.
**
Requires: lzma is not enough IMHO. The package seems to need also tar, gzip and
bzip2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-26
17:16:05 EDT ---
Thank you guys.
(In reply to comment #4)
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc. NEEDSWORK
-Please add COPYING to the doc section
After the review of Gratien I removed COPYING. But the fixed version came back
with 0.1.2. COPYING added
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Notes:
-Your package should BuildRequire: python-devel instead of python
Actually, python-setuptools-devel pulls in python-devel, so that's not a
problem. But it's better to BR it exclusively.
For newer Fedora releases that's true. For releases F-11 the guidelines told
another story. Changed.
(The ./ in front of setup.py is unnecessary when run via python.)
Removed
I suggest using autoarchive instead of %{name} in the %files section for
consistency.
Changed
Requires: lzma is not enough IMHO. The package seems to need also tar, gzip
and
bzip2.
Yes, you are right, the 'archiver class' shows points that let indicate that
all this tools are needed.
Here are the updated files:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Julian Aloofi julian.fed...@googlemail.com 2009-07-26 19:12:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Requires: lzma is not enough IMHO. The package seems to need also tar, gzip and bzip2. Yes, you are right, the 'archiver class' shows points that let indicate that all this tools are needed. You are still using the old spec file in the Spec URL link, but the one in the SRPM is good. By the way, tar gzip and bzip2 are in the Base group anyway, you can't install Fedora without them. I wonder why these packages are not in the exception list in the Guidelines. I can't see any further problems with the package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-04-15 07:14:32 EDT --- * Wed Apr 15 2009 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net - 0.1.2-1 - Upstream renamed some parts from aa to autoarchive (symlinks) - Added examples - Updated to new upstream version 0.1.2 Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-03-18 13:46:44 EDT --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #1) ** FIX ** - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ** OK ** The file COPYING matches the spec License line. !! Warning !! The file PKG-INFO mentions as license GNU GPL which does not match GPLv3+ !! Warning !! The source files do not match the license: # archiver.py # # Project: AutoArchive # License: GNU GPL I changed the license to GPL+, removed the needless COPYING, and informed upstream about the discrepancy. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=1110082aid=2691699group_id=239510 !! Warning !! Not all Requirements are listed - lzma seems to be used and is not part of the Packaging/FullExceptionList (it is up to you to decide). %files section added ** FIX ** - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. $ file /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING /usr/share/doc/autoarchive-0.1.1/COPYING: ASCII English text Keeping the original date/time of documentation file is probably a good idea (no guidelines about this) A simple solution : # Convert to utf-8 for file in COPYING NEWS README README.sk; do mv $file timestamp iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 -o $file timestamp touch -r timestamp $file done The files are already UTF-8, aren't they? Issues: - Would be nice to provide some example config-files with extention .aa There is an example configuration mentioned in the README. Pinged upstream about that https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detailaid=2692252group_id=239510atid=1110082 - command name aa does not remind me of autoarchive, perhaps better use autoarchive This is upstream's call and not the one of the package maintainers. I agree with you that the name would be better 'autoarchive' than 'aa'. https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detailaid=2692266group_id=239510atid=1110082 - The name autoarchiver is sometimes written as AutoArchiver. Why the difference? The project is called 'AutoArchive' and the application stuff 'autoarchive'. For me this seams a normal way to go. 'AutoArchive' for the python stuff is feasible, from my point of view. - FIX the above mentioned items done - Summary line (in spec file) is a bit simplistic Simple backup tool. Does not give me any hint about autoarchiver. Please give a better summary. As fare as I know is the intention of the summary to provide only very basic information about the tool. But changed a bit. Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/autoarchive-0.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473835
Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gratien.dha...@it3.be
--- Comment #1 from Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be 2009-01-16
11:08:36 EDT ---
Home page of project: http://autoarchive.sourceforge.net/
File Section on SourceForge:
http://sourceforge.net/project/platformdownload.php?group_id=239510
Analysis Report
** OK ** - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint -i -v SPECS/autoarchive.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint -i -v ~/Download/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
autoarchive.src: I: checking
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
** OK ** - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Package name
autoarchive is acceptable and does not yet exist in the list of registered
packages.
** OK ** - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec.
** OK ** - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license
(GPLv3+) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
** FIX ** - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
** OK ** The file COPYING matches the spec License line.
!! Warning !! The file PKG-INFO mentions as license GNU GPL which does not
match GPLv3+
!! Warning !! The source files do not match the license:
# archiver.py
#
# Project: AutoArchive
# License: GNU GPL
** OK ** - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
** OK ** - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
** OK ** - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
** OK ** - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream
source by
e5d447c99c056027778ea7abf4d4c91e Download/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
8cede45be633221fca031b4825ede1ea Download/autoarchive-0.1.1.tar.bz2
extracted tarball (from rpm -ivh ~/Download/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm)
equals:
$ md5sum autoarchive-0.1.1.tar.bz2
8cede45be633221fca031b4825ede1ea autoarchive-0.1.1.tar.bz2
** OK ** - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms
on i386
$ rpmbuild -ba ../SPECS/autoarchive.spec
error: Failed build dependencies:
python-setuptools-devel is needed by autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch
$ grep Requires ../SPECS/autoarchive.spec
BuildRequires: python
BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel
(first installing python-setuptools-devel)
$ rpmbuild -ba ../SPECS/autoarchive.spec
succeeds.
$ rpmlint -v -i RPMS/noarch/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
autoarchive.noarch: I: checking
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
** N/A ** - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work
on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec
in ExcludeArch.
** OK ** - MUST: Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires:
$ rpm -qp --requires RPMS/noarch/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/python
python(abi) = 2.5
!! Warning !! Not all Requirements are listed - lzma seems to be used and is
not part
of the Packaging/FullExceptionList (it is up to you to decide).
** OK ** - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang
macro.
** N/A ** - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
** N/A ** - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
** OK ** - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
$ rpm -qpl RPMS/noarch/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/aa
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/__init__.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/__init__.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/__init__.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/aautils.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/aautils.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/aautils.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archive_spec.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archive_spec.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archive_spec.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archiver.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archiver.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archiver.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/meta.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/meta.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/meta.pyo
