[BUG] Unusually named license_files not included in dist-info

setuptools version

setuptools===57.4.0

Python version

3.9.6

OS

Fedora Linux 33, x86_64

Additional environment information

wheel===0.36.2

Description

I’ve tried to test out https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/2645 but including license files not named according to this pattern:

https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/blob/0c302d232dd1a1f4ec531050532a84274edac2f4/setuptools/dist.py#L596

Are not included in dist info.

Expected behavior

I expected that files explicitly listed in license_files will always be listed in METADATA under License-File: and will always be included in the dist-info directory regardless of their filename.

How to Reproduce

Consider this setup.py:

from setuptools import setup

setup(
    name='nested_dist',
    version='666',
    license_files=['LICENSE'],
)

And an empty LICENSE file.

Run:

$ python -c 'import setuptools.build_meta; setuptools.build_meta.__legacy__.prepare_metadata_for_build_wheel(".")'

Or:

$ python setup.py bdist_wheel

Or:

$ pip wheel .

You’ll see something like:

running dist_info
...
adding license file 'LICENSE'
...
adding license file "LICENSE" (matched pattern "LICEN[CS]E*")
...

The LICENSE file will be listed in METADATA under License-File: and it will be included in the dist-info directory.

Now rename LICENSE to DIFFERENT and adapt license_files accordingly:

from setuptools import setup

setup(
    name='nested_dist',
    version='666',
    license_files=['DIFFERENT'],
)

You’ll get:

...
adding license file 'DIFFERENT'
...

The DIFFERENT file will be listed in METADATA under License-File: and it will not be included in the dist-info directory.

Output

See above.

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the PSF Code of Conduct

[encukou]

Also, what happens if someone names the license file RECORD?

Raise an error if an existing file in dist-info would be overwritten? That’d allow adding better solutions in the future.

[cdce8p]

I don’t understand what is the point of listing missing files as License-File. If wheel cannot add files like this, setuptools should not list them and fail instead.

If you’re referring to the license_files argument in setup(), I agree this should be deprecated / removed.

With setup.cfg, it kinda works.

However, when the licenses are in nested directories, as listed in the given example: https://wheel.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_guide.html#including-license-files-in-the-generated-wheel-file

The license files are included directly in the dist-info directory (e.g. as license.txt) and the License-File: entries are incorrect (e.g. 3rdparty/license.txt).

That is still a point that needs to be addressed. IMO wheel needs to update their implementation here. Although they do mention the behavior in their docs, it can cause name conflicts, e.g., if a file named LICENSE is present in a sub dir in addition to the main one.

No matter the path, all the matching license files are written in the wheel in the .dist-info
directory based on their file name only.

In that case 3rdparty/LICENSE would overwrite the previous one.

– I’m open to suggestions if you have an idea how to better resolve this conflict.