# Spaces not considered a valid, verbatim character for glob patterns

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/spaces-not-considered-a-valid-verbatim-character-for-glob-patterns/106463>\
**Category:** Packaging\
**Created:** [March 9, 2026, 10:03pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/spaces-not-considered-a-valid-verbatim-character-for-glob-patterns/106463 "2026-03-09T22:03:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mgorny](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/mgorny/32/34029_2.png) [@mgorny](https://discuss.python.org/u/mgorny)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2026, 1:49pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/spaces-not-considered-a-valid-verbatim-character-for-glob-patterns/106463/2 "2026-03-10T13:49:40Z")

</div>

Apparently these patterns are from PEP 639: [PEP 639 – Improving License Clarity with Better Package Metadata | peps.python.org](https://peps.python.org/pep-0639/#add-license-files-key). Unfortunately, it doesn’t really seem to include a rationale for such a narrow definition of glob.

Looking at the linked discussion, @konstin seems to have authored the latest version: [PEP 639, Round 3: Improving license clarity with better package metadata - #72 by konstin](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-639-round-3-improving-license-clarity-with-better-package-metadata/53020/72). You seem to have authored the earlier version per [PEP 639: Incorporate the latest discussion feedback by befeleme · Pull Request #3866 · python/peps · GitHub](https://github.com/python/peps/pull/3866).

The earlier version was specifically talking of “portability”. On one hand, spaces are traditionally known to cause problems with badly written code. On the other, I don’t think it really applies here.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/spaces-not-considered-a-valid-verbatim-character-for-glob-patterns/106463)._