-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support license-files [PEP-639] #77
Comments
Yep, definitely makes sense to me to stick with the PEPs that have officially been accepted. I suppose we could support 639 as an option, but that's not worth doing for our initial release IMO. |
Looks like it's happening: https://floss.social/@hroncok/113044747383279536 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
So, in issue #32 I was thrown off-course by the
setuptools
documentation, which documented bothlicense
andlicense_files
fields.It was not clear whether the
license
field was sometimes read from a file instead of being verbatim text, or how thelicense_files
influenced this field.Experimental work suggested the two fields do not interact; a license file described in
license_files
does not yield text appearing in thelicense
field. Furthermore,setuptools
does not support thefile:
prefix to denote text as coming from an external file as it does with other fields.Having seen the library mentioned in issue #74 and reading the official Python package specification linked within (https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/core-metadata/#license), it is apparent this is a
setuptools
extension, undergoing discussion for inclusion under PEP-639 (https://peps.python.org/pep-0639/).As such, we're probably better off waiting until a decision is made on PEP-639 before implementing it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: