PEP 639 compliance#7394
Conversation
|
Thanks for the PR, @DimitriPapadopoulos. This was an intentional decision recorded here, we'll revisit this later. |
|
It doesn't make sense to keep compatibility with Setuptools < 77. From the Setuptools documentation:
|
|
I think you may be looking at the issue through a narrow lens. Anyone who's installing Requests with pinned dependencies or a static local install can't necessarily "just update" or change their install tooling immediately. This change is entirely cosmetic for PyPI, there's no real end-user benefit. I don't think that warrants the breakage risk or constraining users to only build tools released in the last year. Almost every other major project has deferred this pin move and we're not interested in pioneering that unnecessarily. |
|
I wasn't aware of major projects that have deferred this update, but I must admit I'm more interested in scientific Python, where the community might be updating more aggressively. |
|
I would take a look at major scientific Python projects because they largely share the same build system (meson) which has their setuptools pin even lower than ours. Requests is not the outlier here for a project of this size. |
|
I have already taken a look at major scientific Python projects such as NumPy or scikit-learn. |
|
But it's true that PEP 639 is especially interesting for projects with multiple licences (using SPDX expressions typically involving |
https://peps.python.org/pep-0639/