Twine should require pkginfo > 1.10

[pfmoore]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing issues (open and closed), and could not find an existing issue

What keywords did you use to search existing issues?

None, I scanned the closed issue list manually and found it.

Please describe why your using this option

This is linked to issue #1059

Without depending on pkginfo > 1.10, existing users of twine won't get the new pkginfo version by upgrading twine (pip does not upgrade dependencies by default unless necessary). As a result, users upgrading twine because they are getting an error when using metadata 2.3, will still get the issue after the upgrade, and will be confused as to how to address the problem. See pypa/packaging-problems#735 for such a case.

Anything else you'd like to mention?

No response

[henryiii]

FYI, maturin and now hatchling are producing metadata 2.3.

[sigmavirus24]

I don't believe we typically update the floor for dependencies like pkginfo because that typically gets us into hot water with distributors. We can, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I'm not certain the adoption of hatchling or maturin is enough that folks will encounter this.

[henryiii]

Small comment: Hatchling is the third most popular build backend on PyPI (after setuptools and Poetry) - it's the most popular backend to only support PEP 621 and maturin is the most popular compiled build backend (not counting setuptools). I would also assume other backends will update at some point now that PyPI supports 2.3 - if pyproject-metadata updates for example, that would affect pdm-backend, scikit-build-core, and meson-python.

Not saying it should be updated, but just commenting on this aspect of the reply. I agree that a tight floor would also cause issues (maybe good ones though?)

[umarbutler]

On 15 March, I updated a package using py -m twine upload --repository pypi dist/* and experienced no issues. Today, I built a new package, seemingly having not upgraded any of my build tools (although perhaps it is possible I did?) and experienced this issue: InvalidDistribution: Metadata is missing required fields: Name, Version.. This persisted even after upgrading my twine and trying Python 11 instead of 12. Only after upgrading pkginfo was the issue fixed. A higher version of pkginfo should be a requirement to ensure that this doesn't happen to others. At the very least, twine's error message should mention that upgrading pkginfo will probably solve the issue.

Related issues I have located are as follows:

• Check command doesn't recognize metadata 2.3 #1059
• Can't run a twine upload due to version problem pypi/warehouse#15611
• Twine should require pkginfo > 1.10 #1070
• Successfully build *.whl and *.tar.gz, but cannot upload them through twine packaging-problems#735

[pfmoore]

+1 for at least updating the error message to suggest manually upgrading pkginfo.

[umarbutler]

I don't believe we typically update the floor for dependencies like pkginfo because that typically gets us into hot water with distributors. We can, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I'm not certain the adoption of hatchling or maturin is enough that folks will encounter this.

@sigmavirus24 I’d suggest having a look at all the issues I referenced, there are a number of us that have already begun encountering problems. Hatchling is pretty popular.

[jaimergp]

This should be pkginfo>=1.10, right? 1.10 included, I mean.

[jaraco]

It seems that pkginfo 1.11 has added forward-compatibility for future metadata versions (along with a warning). Assuming #1123 is adopted, it's been suggested that twine set pkginfo >= 1.11 as the floor, after which the need to keep bumping the floor with metadata revisions goes away. As it currently stands, users get a more informative error message about "supported metadata versions", which provides a somewhat better signal when the metadata version is missing or unrecognized. Perhaps it makes sense to bump the minimum to >= 1.11 soonish to get the warning behavior for everyone.