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

[Daniel Holth]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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

There's also the fact that our module namespace is separate from our
distribution names namespace...