On Sat Aug 19, 2023 at 22:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 19. 08. 23 19:44, Maxwell G wrote: > > Hi Pythonistas, > > > > %pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files > > with %license when a build backend installs them into a package's > > dist-info directory and the License-File header is specified in the > > METADATA file. Currently, only setuptools and hatchling meet this > > criteria. Notably, poetry and flit do not support this. They will > > install license texts into the dist-info directory, but they do not add > > the License-File metadata. The License-File tag is not standardized, and > > discussion on PEP 639 which defines this standard has stalled. I believe > > relying on this feature is a problem, as if a project changes build > > systems or some other config and a packager doesn't realize, suddenly > > the license file won't be marked with %license or even worse, not > > installed at all. Since the pyproject macros read the build backend from > > pyproject.toml without packagers having to manually specify anything > > (which is generally great!), this situation seems likely to occur. > > > > Until these issues are resolved, I propose banning this in Fedora and > > requiring packagers to manually mark files with %license or at least > > adding a large warning to the Packaging Guidelines. It can be similar to > > the `'*' +auto` flags which are used by pyp2spec for automatic PyPI > > builds in Copr but not allowed in Fedora proper. > > What do y'all think? Am I missing something? > > Hey. Alternatively to banning this: what if we make %pyproject_save_files > fail > without a license? Obviously, that would be a breaking change, so it could be > opt-in first. > > %pyproject_save_files -l ... > > When used like this, no License-File header would result in an error.
> > We could introduce a reverse flag -L (don't fail without a license), and have > a > discussion about changing the default later. > > The guidelines could than say something like: If there is a license file you > MUST do one of the following when using %pyproject_save_files: > > 1) use -l and don't list it in %files explicitly > 2) use -L and list it in %files explicitly > > That way, we ensure the license is packaged (and marked as %license) while > not > reducing automation. > I like -l flag idea, but I don't think we can make it fail by default for the foreseeable future, given the status of PEP 639 and build system adoption. We could use a heuristic (such as a hardcoded list of globs) to match license files in dist-info directories if License-File doesn't exist, but I'm not sure that's the best idea. I'm hesitant about adding a noop -L flag until we actually have a plan/criteria on when to start enforcing -l, but I don't feel strongly. -- Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/They _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
