feat: Add pep 639 compatibility #226
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
7 tasks
|
This has already been proposed in #213. |
Oh I didnt saw the previous PR, thanks for pointing that out. I'll have a look at it and close this one afterward (in a few hours) |
|
Closing, duplicate of #213 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PEP 639 has been recently validated and has started to be used by well known packages. While there was a problem at first to correctly pass the new metadata format (2.4) to PyPI (when using
twine), this is no longer the case and the metadata is available on PyPI. However,pip-licensesis not able to leverage this new metadata and multiple packages licenses are now returned as"UNKNOWN".This PR adds some changes to leverage the new metadata field "License-Expression", see https://peps.python.org/pep-0639/#add-license-expression-field
I tested it locally on packages which moved to this new standard, e.g. referencing v0.36.2 or attrs v25.1.0, and it worked correctly, see below
Feel free to let me know if you have any remarks / questions :)