Bug 1243499

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.

You make the package only for Python 2.7, so any mention of other versions should be removed from %description.

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.

No issues with packaging otherwise.

(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. :-)

> 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.

FWIW both debian and Arch maintainer agree with this assessment:

http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/c/configparser/configparser_3.3.0r2-2_copyright
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-configparser/

In any case agree that, according to "The Zen of Python", "Explicit is better than implicit."

So I will ask the author to add a license file to the code.

> No issues with packaging otherwise.

Thanks.

(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.)

I have updated the description and the information regarding the license:

* Thu Jul 16 2015 José Matos <jamatos> - 3.5.0b2-0.2
- Improve description to make it clear that this package in only needed for python 2.7
- Make the license tag information more explicit.

Spec URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-configparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.fc22.src.rpm

- latest version
- license has been clarified ;)
- packaging is standard for Python modules
- no conflicts
- guidelines are followed

Package is APPROVED.

Thnak you. :-)

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-configparser
Short Description: Backport of python 3 configparser module to python 2.7 (and 2.6)
Upstream URL: https://bitbucket.org/ambv/configparser
Owners: jamatos
Branches: f21 f22 f23

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Checked in and built.

python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.fc22

python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.fc21

python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.