[Distutils] PEP-459 feedback from openSUSE packaging

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 4 15:18:41 CET 2014

On 5 February 2014 00:05, Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh, I hadn't seen SPDX before - very interesting. I'm wondering if it
>> may be a better fit for the PyPI Trove classifiers though - then it
>> wouldn't even need to wait for metadata 2.0, we could just add them to
>> the list of supported classifiers
>> (https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=list_classifiers) and projects
>> could start listing them in their current metadata.
>> Something like:
>>     License :: SPDX :: <tag>
>> Cheers,
>> Nick.
> Those SPDX are great. They could certainly go into either license or
> into a trove classifier, the difference being the trove classifiers
> are checked against a static list.

The main advantage I can see to going the classifier route is that it
means not having to wait for metadata 2.0 to promote them - folks can
start using them as soon as they're registered on PyPI.

It also avoids compatibility issues when attempting to convert the
many current projects with unclear license terms to metadata 2.0,
while still making it easy for distro repackagers to offer upstream
patches or bug reports to request license clarifications.

However, I do like the idea of having metadata 2.0 encourage the use
of OSI approved SPDX tags in the license field. I just don't think we
can upgrade that from a SHOULD to a MUST without breaking too many
packages :(


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list