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.

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

Use a PEP621 license definition. #128

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 31, 2024
Merged

Use a PEP621 license definition. #128

merged 2 commits into from
May 31, 2024

Conversation

freakboy3742
Copy link
Member

beeware/briefcase#1812 adds parsing for PEP 621 LICENSE file definitions. This updates the base template to generate PEP 621 format output, rather than bare license text.

PR Checklist:

  • All new features have been tested
  • All new features have been documented
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md file
  • I will abide by the code of conduct

@freakboy3742 freakboy3742 requested a review from mhsmith May 27, 2024 06:13
@rmartin16
Copy link
Member

I was actually just about to make this change myself 🙂

Perhaps instead of hardcoding the name of the license file in the pyproject.toml, a license_file property could be introduced that defaults to LICENSE? Not immediately useful for current purposes....but the cost is pretty low for the configurability...

@freakboy3742
Copy link
Member Author

Perhaps instead of hardcoding the name of the license file in the pyproject.toml, a license_file property could be introduced that defaults to LICENSE? Not immediately useful for current purposes....but the cost is pretty low for the configurability...

I guess... but I'm not sure how/where it would be used. We have a template that generates LICENSE; so we generate a pyproject.toml that references that file. LICENSE is a "known name"; yes, there are other variants on that naming, but at this point, Github conventions are so rusted on that almost any other name is anachronistic. Sure, we could template the name and make it configurable... but who is going to use that point of configuration?

@rmartin16
Copy link
Member

but who is going to use that point of configuration?

Yeah....I can only come up with particularly contrived situations where this could be used right now; other changes would be necessary to be of any real world use.

@freakboy3742 freakboy3742 merged commit ca7d22d into main May 31, 2024
20 checks passed
@freakboy3742 freakboy3742 deleted the license-file branch June 3, 2024 04:09
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