[Distutils] PEP-459 feedback from openSUSE packaging

[Sascha Peilicke]

On Wednesday 05 February 2014 00:18:41 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 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 :(

I agree, it has to be a SHOULD of some sort.
-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Sascha Peilicke