Open sjlongland opened 1 year ago
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
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.