I think the issue here is not your use of the "license" field (though using the 
classifier-like syntax there is dubious), but the fact that you are specifying 
an invalid classifier. The valid classifiers are enumerated, you can find them 
here: https://pypi.org/classifiers/

I think the classifier you want is `License :: Other/Proprietary License`, but 
you can choose the most appropriate one from the list.

On 07/11/2018 12:14 PM, Robin Becker wrote:
> After release of Python-3.7 I wanted to upload to pypi a newly built version 
> of a C-extension which already has been migrated to the new site.
> $ twine --version
> twine version 1.11.0 (pkginfo: 1.4.2, requests: 2.18.1, setuptools: 36.2.0,
> requests-toolbelt: 0.8.0, tqdm: 4.14.0)
> $ twine upload *.whl
> Uploading distributions to https://upload.pypi.org/legacy/
> Uploading pyRXP-2.1.1-cp37-cp37m-manylinux1_i686.whl
> 100%|████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████|
>  104K/104K [00:00<00:00, 141KB/s]
> HTTPError: 400 Client Error: Invalid value for classifiers. Error: 'License 
> :: OSI Approved :: ReportLab BSD derived' is not a valid choice for this 
> field for url: https://upload.pypi.org/legacy/
> 1) I think it is completely wrong for twine/pypi to fail to upload because of 
> the license field. The license is derived from BSD and the same string is 
> present in the previously uploaded versions of this package. What are valid 
> licenses? Presumably pypi is now a gatekeeper for the license police.
> 2) I looked in vain on the new pypi.org site for a manual upload mechanism. 
> Is this now frowned on?
> 3) I was able to upload the same package several times without error; does 
> this mean I am overwriting the file?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org
Message archived at 

Reply via email to