add license title and fix short identifier #38
Conversation
It's not strictly required, but it's useful metadata, and part of the recommended license template text: - http://choosealicense.com/licenses/isc/ - https://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license - http://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html#licenseText
waldyrious
changed the title
| packages=['bidict'], | ||
| package_data=dict(bidict=['VERSION']), | ||
| zip_safe=True, | ||
| classifiers=[ | ||
| 'Development Status :: 4 - Beta', | ||
| 'Intended Audience :: Developers', | ||
| 'License :: OSI Approved :: ISC License (ISCL)', | ||
| 'License :: OSI Approved :: ISC License', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=list_classifiers lists the classifier as I had it, with (ISCL) at the end, which is where I got this from. Can you provide a reference explaining why that's wrong and this is right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure. The second commit has the to the relevant authoritative sources in the extended description:
see https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC and http://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html
Sorry that I didn't make this clearer in the PR's main description text. I'll add it now, for future reference.
By the way, I did submit a PR to fix the acronym in the list of classifiers (https://github.com/russianidiot/classifiers.py/pull/1) [2020-06-20 update: I now submitted it to the proper repo: https://github.com/pypa/trove-classifiers/pull/35]. I'm not entirely sure that is the correct procedure to go about fixing this, but if it isn't, I expect that PR to at least open the conversation to reach that goal.
|
Obrigado pelo PR @waldyrious! Happy to merge the first change and just have some questions before merging the second. If you could explain the consequences of making your changes to setup.py vs. leaving it as-is, I'm curious to understand better why this makes a difference. Thanks again for dropping by, and if you'd like to share how you came across / are using bidict, I'm always interested to connect more with the community. (Was it through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_map?) |
|
Thanks for the quick response! I hope I have clarified your questions in the comments above. As for how I came across this package, it was actually precisely due to your choice of license :) I happen to think the ISC is the neatest of the short, permissive licenses around (MIT, BSD, etc.), so I decided to make sure it was being properly applied at in the most popular github repos (100+ stars) using it. |
|
Thank you for the thorough explanations! Just merged this. I suppose I could have waited to see what happens with russianidiot/classifiers.py#1 first (thanks for following up there, by the way), but I'm happy to just watch that issue for now and for bidict to lead the charge in using your preferred classifier in the meantime. And by the way, I think that result I turned up about |
|
I'm glad you decided to lead the charge! standardization FTW :) Thanks for the info on what should go on the license field. I did think it was odd that they'd recommend the license file. I opened up a PR proposing a fix, but given the age of the other open PRs, I'm not holding my breath... |
|
Right on @waldyrious. Thanks again for the PR. |
|
Hi @waldyrious, with this change I am no longer able to create new releases on PyPI. What a bummer.
Likewise, manually uploading a PKG-INFO file using the PyPI web interface fails with I was hoping to release 0.13.0 tonight but it looks like I'll have to back out this change to get past this error. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks in advance and hope to hear from you soon. |
|
I can't think of anything that would fix this immediately. This would require a change in PyPI via https://github.com/russianidiot/classifiers.py/pull/1 being merged, or something else which I'm unaware of. Feel free to revert the |
|
If I'm reading this page correctly, https://pypi.python.org is still using the codebase that now lives at pypa/pypi-legacy (the new code, at pypa/warehouse, seems to power https://pypi.org -- which is still beta, it seems?). If that's indeed the case, then the line to be changed in this (and I suppose that would require a database update). So not looking good for a quick fix... |
|
Thanks, @waldyrious. I reverted that line so I could get the release out. I +1'd https://github.com/russianidiot/classifiers.py/pull/1 (and would be happy to do the same for any other issues / PRs that would show interest in getting this changed upstream). |
|
Hey @jab, just to give you an update; I'm not sure why I assumed |
|
Thanks for the update, and hope you’ve been well. I actually switched bidict’s license to the MPLv2 a while ago, so no longer relevant here, but I do appreciate your following up! |
The license title is not strictly required, but it's useful metadata, and part of the recommended license template text:
The short identifier has been codified by both SPDX and OSI as "ISC" -- see https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC and http://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html.