PEP 639 compliance

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 53.20%. Comparing base (fc8cb41) to head (74dc4f7).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #670   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   53.20%   53.20%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines        1109     1109           
=======================================
  Hits          590      590           
  Misses        519      519           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[agronholm]

I'm guessing flit still doesn't pick up the obvious license file names like setuptools does?

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

Perhaps it does. I really don't know. Let me try a build without license-files and see what happens.

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

Packaging the main branch with python -m build results in a PKG-INFO file with:

License-Expression: MIT
License-File: LICENSE.txt

Packaging my PEP639 branch with python -m build results in a similar PKG-INFO file:

License-Expression: MIT
License-File: LICENSE.txt

Packaging my PEP639 branch after removing the license-files key also results in a similar PKG-INFO file:

License-Expression: MIT
License-File: LICENSE.txt

Additionally, the New style metadata section of the flit documentation states:

license-files

A list of glob patterns for license files to include. Defaults to ['COPYING*', 'LICEN[CS]E*'].

I understand you prefer implicit over explicit, so I'm removing the license-files key.

[agronholm]

Thanks. We'll see when I will gather enough courage to do another release. I got burned the last couple times I tried that.