Update the specification with PEP 639

[befeleme]

Changed pages:

• glossary
• pyproject.toml
• sdist spec
• wheel spec
• installation spec

❓ The meaning of the license key in pyproject.toml is changed. The fact that table subkeys are deprecated is mentioned. Should I also keep the previous specification details?

❓ Cosmetic "unsureness": keep the changelog at November or antidate it to August when the PEP was provisionally accepted? Since the conditions of acceptance were just recently met, it's high time for these updates.

Resolves #1245.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚:

• https://python-packaging-user-guide--1662.org.readthedocs.build/en/1662/glossary/#term-License-Classifier
• https://python-packaging-user-guide--1662.org.readthedocs.build/en/1662/guides/licensing-examples-and-user-scenarios/
• https://python-packaging-user-guide--1662.org.readthedocs.build/en/1662/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/#license
• https://python-packaging-user-guide--1662.org.readthedocs.build/en/1662/specifications/binary-distribution-format/#the-dist-info-licenses-directory
• https://python-packaging-user-guide--1662.org.readthedocs.build/en/1662/specifications/pyproject-toml/#license
• https://python-packaging-user-guide--1662.org.readthedocs.build/en/1662/specifications/recording-installed-packages/#the-licenses-subdirectory
• https://python-packaging-user-guide--1662.org.readthedocs.build/en/1662/specifications/source-distribution-format/#source-distribution-file-format

[befeleme]

• update https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/#license
• update https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/tutorials/packaging-projects/

[webknjaz]

@befeleme I've added code suggestions with :file: into a few places, but I'd like to ask you to also apply the same technique in other places that I've missed.

[befeleme]

I addressed the review points in the fixup commits for better readability (will squash them later once we get closer to merging). I still walk through the pages looking for the gaps. Thank you for the sphinx tips, that's very helpful!

[befeleme]

I think it's ready.

[befeleme]

Is there anything I can do to make this move forward?

[cdce8p]

Thanks for working on this @befeleme!

[ncoghlan]

This looks good to me, so I'm taking the view that any further edits and clarifications that folks identify post merge can be tackled in a new PR.

[ncoghlan]

Thanks for the extensive PR @befeleme, and the thorough reviews, all!

[webknjaz]

@ncoghlan thanks for merging! I was struggling to find time for a thorough final review myself…

[ncoghlan]

@webknjaz I admit there was an element of "the goal is 'better than the status quo, not perfect''' in my own final review. I almost put it off again due to the PR size, realised other reviewers were probably doing the same thing, and decided it was time to move things forward :)

[webknjaz]

Yeah.. I was mostly spotting low-hanging fruit in the first passes, hoping to be able to dedicate an uninterrupted chunk of time to more in-depth reading at some ideal but unspecified moment in time ;)

[befeleme]

Thank you, all!