https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243499 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to José Matos from comment #2) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > > I was worried about issues with backwards compatiblity. But this package > > does not override the module in Python 2.7 stdlib because the name is > > different (configparser vs. ConfigParser). I think a note about this should > > be added to %description, to avoid confusion. > > OK. I will add a note. > > > You make the package only for Python 2.7, so any mention of other versions > > should be removed from %description. > > I disagree. The idea of the sentence is that the code can be used unchanged > from versions 2.6 to 3.5 (btw excluding 3.0 and 3.1). This is relevant. > > What I agree that it can be done is to improve the last remark and say > something like this this: > > "This package is not available for python 3 since it belongs to standard > library starting from python 3.2 so it is already installed with python 3." > > I welcome improvements to the sentence above. :-) Maybe make it explicit: "In Fedora, this package is only provided for Python 2 because a recent version is already installed as part of the Python 3 standard library." > > There is no license file. > > Also, I think licensing might be wrong. CPython is licensed under PYTHON > > SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2, and configparser is directly derived > > from that, so should also be licensed the same. I think that licensing it as > > MIT might be a mistake, unless configparser is indpendently derived from a > > different source. Upstream maintainer of configparser in cpython prepared > > the stand-alone configparser module, so it's possible that he is simply has > > copyright to the code and decided to provide it under a different license. > > Either way, please confirm the license, and ask upstream to include a > > license file. > > I took the time to confirm the license. In a sense for me that is the most > important check that needs to be done while packaging. :-) > > The source for the license is the pypi package whose the index > responsibility is from author of the code (the same that is in python > standard library). > > The license there is MIT. Yes. But I think that *that* license might be wrong. (Although the difference between MIT and PSFL is cosmetic, so there's little practical difference.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review