Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Update the specification with PEP 639 #1662

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update the specification with PEP 639 #1662

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

befeleme
Copy link
Contributor

@befeleme befeleme commented Nov 19, 2024 •
edited by webknjaz
Loading

Changed pages:

  • glossary
  • pyproject.toml
  • sdist spec
  • wheel spec
  • installation spec

❓ The meaning of the license key in pyproject.toml is changed. The fact that table subkeys are deprecated is mentioned. Should I also keep the previous specification details?

❓ Cosmetic "unsureness": keep the changelog at November or antidate it to August when the PEP was provisionally accepted? Since the conditions of acceptance were just recently met, it's high time for these updates.

Resolves #1245.

📚 Documentation preview 📚:

@befeleme

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@befeleme befeleme marked this pull request as draft November 19, 2024 12:15
@befeleme
Copy link
Contributor Author

befeleme commented Nov 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@befeleme befeleme force-pushed the pep639 branch 3 times, most recently from e652a7e to f5baeba Compare November 19, 2024 15:05
@webknjaz webknjaz added the type: enhancement A self-contained enhancement or new feature label Nov 20, 2024
webknjaz
webknjaz reviewed Nov 20, 2024
View reviewed changes
source/glossary.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
webknjaz
webknjaz reviewed Nov 20, 2024
View reviewed changes
source/glossary.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
webknjaz
webknjaz reviewed Nov 20, 2024
View reviewed changes
source/glossary.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@webknjaz
Copy link
Member

@befeleme I've added code suggestions with :file: into a few places, but I'd like to ask you to also apply the same technique in other places that I've missed.

@befeleme befeleme mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2024
Merged
@befeleme
Copy link
Contributor Author

I addressed the review points in the fixup commits for better readability (will squash them later once we get closer to merging). I still walk through the pages looking for the gaps. Thank you for the sphinx tips, that's very helpful!

@befeleme befeleme force-pushed the pep639 branch 2 times, most recently from 22a449c to 4c81d90 Compare November 26, 2024 11:54
@befeleme befeleme marked this pull request as ready for review November 26, 2024 11:59
@befeleme
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think it's ready.

@befeleme
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is there anything I can do to make this move forward?

@befeleme

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
cdce8p
cdce8p reviewed Dec 11, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@cdce8p cdce8p left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for working on this @befeleme!

source/tutorials/packaging-projects.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/guides/writing-pyproject-toml.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/guides/writing-pyproject-toml.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/specifications/pyproject-toml.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
source/specifications/pyproject-toml.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/guides/licensing-examples-and-user-scenarios.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/guides/licensing-examples-and-user-scenarios.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
source/guides/licensing-examples-and-user-scenarios.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/guides/licensing-examples-and-user-scenarios.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
source/guides/licensing-examples-and-user-scenarios.rst Outdated
Comment on lines 334 to 341
As an example, if your project was licensed MIT but incorporated
a vendored dependency (say, ``packaging``) that was licensed under
either Apache 2.0 or the 2-clause BSD, your license expression would
be ``MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)``. You might have a
:file:`LICENSE.txt` in your repo root, and a :file:`LICENSE-APACHE.txt` and
:file:`LICENSE-BSD.txt` in the ``_vendor`` subdirectory, so to include
all of them, you'd specify ``["LICENSE.txt", "_vendor/packaging/LICENSE*"]``
as glob patterns, or
``["LICENSE.txt", "_vendor/LICENSE-APACHE.txt", "_vendor/LICENSE-BSD.txt"]``
as literal file paths.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See my comment above about vendoring.

@webknjaz

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@webknjaz webknjaz mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2024
Closed
@webknjaz webknjaz mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2024
Open
zahlman
zahlman reviewed Dec 13, 2024
View reviewed changes
source/glossary.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
befeleme and others added 6 commits January 7, 2025 11:27
@befeleme
Introduce licensing terms in Glossary
e5fe842 
Copied and adapted from PEP 639.
@befeleme
Update pyproject.toml specification according to PEP 639
b554032 
Redefine the license key, add license-files, mention that license
classifiers are deprecated now.
@befeleme
Document inclusion of license files in the sdist per PEP 639
b466436
@befeleme @webknjaz
Document inclusion of license files in the .dist-info/licenses per PE…
f999ef0 
…P 639

Co-authored-by: 🇺🇦 Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко) <[email protected]>
@befeleme @webknjaz
Document how to install .dist-info/licenses per PEP 639
cdf84ba 
Co-authored-by: 🇺🇦 Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко) <[email protected]>
@befeleme
Update the Writing pyproject.toml guide with new licensing guidelines
a8f6ba6
@befeleme befeleme force-pushed the pep639 branch 2 times, most recently from 22f7db0 to 8ea46cc Compare January 7, 2025 10:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@cdce8p cdce8p cdce8p left review comments

@zahlman zahlman zahlman left review comments

@webknjaz webknjaz webknjaz left review comments

@Shahid439-max Shahid439-max Shahid439-max approved these changes

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
type: enhancement A self-contained enhancement or new feature
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

State clearly how a license should be declared
5 participants
@befeleme @webknjaz @zahlman @cdce8p @Shahid439-max