Skip to content

Conversation

lobsterkatie
Copy link
Member

@lobsterkatie lobsterkatie commented Apr 30, 2025

Note: This is currently blocked on PyO3/maturin#2571. In the meantime we've done #81 as a workaround.


This fixes the way we declare the package license, to bring it in line with the new format specified in PEP 639, so that pypi will accept our uploads.

Copy link
Member

@Swatinem Swatinem left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

CI is now failing, not quite sure why, it does not like the license-files definition.
Maybe this needs a maturin update?

@lobsterkatie
Copy link
Member Author

LOL - was just busy slacking you about this.

Pypi seems to require PEP 629, but of course maturin doesn’t yet support it: PyO3/maturin#2531 (comment)

There's a draft PR there to fix that, but it seems incomplete: PyO3/maturin#2571

In the issue I linked above, someone suggested a workaround I'll try in the meantime.

lobsterkatie added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2025
Pypi expects us to declare the license file according to PEP 639[1], but maturin doesn't yet support it[2]. Another maturin user posted a workaround[3], to try to get maturin to include the license file in the tarball, which this PR implements.

(There is a draft PR[4] in the maturin repo to add support for PEP 639, but as of now it seems incomplete. If/when that's completed, merged, and released, we can update maturin and then fix the license specification as is done in #80.)


[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0639/
[2] PyO3/maturin#2531 (comment)
[3] PyO3/maturin#2531 (comment)
[4] PyO3/maturin#2571
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants