iSharkFly-Open
/
python-peps
mirror of https://github.com/python/peps.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

PEP 639: Minor typo fixes (#1656)

This commit is contained in:
Philippe Ombredanne 2020-10-16 21:39:49 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent 6605d7b4e9
commit be94151aaf
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
pep-0639.rst
View File

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/2154
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 15-Aug-2018
Created: 15-Aug-2019
Python-Version: 3.x
Post-History:
Replaces: 566
@ -441,13 +441,13 @@ are documented by adding an additional nesting level.
A mapping would be needed as you cannot guarantee that all expressions (e.g. a
GPL with an exception may be in a single file) or all the license keys have a
single license file and that any expression does not have more than one. (e.g.
an Apache license ``LICENSE`` and its ``NOTICE`` file for instance are tow
an Apache license ``LICENSE`` and its ``NOTICE`` file for instance are two
distinct file). Yet in most cases, there is a simpler `one license`, `one or
more license files`. In the rarer and more complex cases where there are many
licenses involved you can still use the proposed conventions at the cost of a
slight loss of clarity by not specifying which text file is for which license
id, but you are not forcing the more complex data model (e.g. a mapping) on
everyone that may not need it.
identifier, but you are not forcing the more complex data model (e.g. a mapping)
on everyone that may not need it.
We could of course have data field with multiple possible value types (it’s a
string, it’s a list, it’s a mapping!) but this could be a source of confusion.
@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ globally once in a shared documentation directory (e.g. /usr/share/doc).
- Fedora RPM packages [#fedora]_ specifies how to include ``License Texts``
[#fedoratext]_ and how use a ``License`` field [#fedoralic]_ that must be filled
with an appropriate license Short License identifier(s) from an extensive list
of "Good Licenses" identifiers [#fedoralist]_. Fedora also defines ist own
of "Good Licenses" identifiers [#fedoralist]_. Fedora also defines its own
license expression syntax very similar to the SDPX syntax.
- OpenSuse RPMs packages [#opensuse]_ use SPDX license expressions with a