You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It occurred to me that we should support dynamic license field because a user project might either bundle or link to a library which would change the license metadata. A tricky point would be how to indicate different licenses for sdist and wheel that could occur on PyPI. This seems like it would require a PEP enhancement on top of PEP639.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I believe this is possible with dynamic-metadata (we need to work on finishing that project, actually, probably should be another "before 1.0" target). It's also something that comes up with SBOM's (PEP 770), and I think it's the same solution, use the Dynamic field of METADATA 2.2+.
Ah, ok so for PEP770 it adds a Sbom-File to PKG-INFO and .dist-info. That should also solve the SourceLicense vs License distinction. Dynamic field for license would work having different values in the PKG-INFO vs .dist-info/METADATA?
It occurred to me that we should support dynamic license field because a user project might either bundle or link to a library which would change the license metadata. A tricky point would be how to indicate different licenses for
sdist
andwheel
that could occur on PyPI. This seems like it would require a PEP enhancement on top of PEP639.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: