Repository navigation
docs: clarify PEP 639 license fields and setuptools minimum - #2143
harshitethic wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
| :pep:`639` defines two fields for modern license metadata. They serve | ||
| different purposes and can be used independently: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As PEP 639 itself says, the canonical specification is at https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/core-metadata/#core-metadata, which is what should be linked instead of PEP639 I believe. Maybe it would make sense to change this in the scope of this pull request?
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Updated the requested spec links in commit f073eec: the backend-support table and its explanation now refer to the canonical Core Metadata license fields, using the existing <core-metadata-license> cross-reference rather than calling PEP 639 the specification. This follows the review note. AI-assisted edit; full documentation build not yet run. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
rgommers
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @harshitethic, this looks reasonable but please address review comments. In addition, I noticed a footnote for flit in that same table about not supporting WITH clauses in SPDX expressions that is no longer accurate - can you remove that as well?
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - uv-build | ||
| * - 1.27.0 | ||
| - 77.0.3 | ||
| - 77.0.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#1854 (comment) is correct, this change is undesirable.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| --------------------------------- | ||
|
|
||
| As per :pep:`639`, licenses should be declared with two fields: | ||
| The :ref:`Core Metadata specification <core-metadata-license>` defines two fields |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This links to the deprecated License field rather than to License-Expression. Please link to the latter.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - ``license-files`` declares the license and other legal files that should be | ||
| included in distribution metadata, using a list of glob patterns. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't a very accurate sentence I think, since the files get included in distribution archives rather than in distribution metadata.
| - ``license-files`` declares the license and other legal files that should be | |
| included in distribution metadata, using a list of glob patterns. | |
| - ``license-files`` specifies glob patterns matching license files and other | |
| legal notices to include in distribution archives. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Also please update the PR title, since the setuptools minimum shouldn't be changed. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Summary
Clarify two ambiguities in the license / license-files guidance.
Fixes #1854.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://python-packaging-user-guide--2143.org.readthedocs.build/en/2143/