[Distutils] Sooner or later, we're going to have to be more formal about how we name packages.

[Paul Moore]

On 1 June 2013 16:57, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> In the Python community, we've been pretty laid back
> about how we name packages.  When we were small, this made
> sense.  It doesn't make sense any more.

I'd like to see some evidence that this is the case. It doesn't seem so to
me - most package names are relatively discoverable and/or intuitive, and
we currently have basically no namespacing. There's a long way to go before
something like your suggestion is needed, in my view.

Unfortunately, I think the sanest way of avoiding most package
> name issues is to base them on domains, as is done in the Java
> world.  This goes against the Python philosophy of preferring
> flat to nested, but I still think it's better than trying to police
> squatters,
> or to encouraging races to claim top-level names.
>

No, no, no...

There's the point Donald made that you require people to own a domain (or
you create some sort of hack like
org.bitbucket.username/com.github.username/...) but it also makes package
names unreasonably deep, and requires an explosion of namespace packages at
the top level. And it's ugly :-)

Perl manages with a relatively flat namespace and relatively informal rules
for managing package names (AIUI). I'm sure Python can, too.

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130601/b090a53d/attachment.html>