On Jul 24, 2007, at 9:56 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 01:09 PM 7/24/2007 -0400, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
Actually, I wasn't confused. :) I'd suggest a convention that allows a distribution "title" (e.g., "Zope", "Twisted", etc.) and a distribution "name" that would simply be the name of the distribution's top-level package (e.g., "zope", "twisted", etc.),
This proposal would rule out namespace packages ...
I thought about that. The rule for namespace distributions would be to allow dotted names, e.g. "zope.interface", "zope.schema", etc., as are often currently used. In fact, in a real sense, those *are* the top-level packages of namespace packages.
Those are the top-level packages of those distributions.
in addition to being incompatible with existing distribution names.
I thought the point was to come up with a new distribution naming convention, because there currently isn't one -- but the naming convention has to be consistent with all existing distribution names? Seems a tough constraint.
No, my proposal was to define: - Rules for constructing *legal* (as opposed to "good") project names - Rules for variations on project names. ...
-- a distribution may contain zero or more packages (even top-level) ...
Indeed, and I've always disliked multiple top-level packages in an [installable unit].
No offense intended, but this seems arbitrary to me. Note that not only can a distribution contain more than one package, it can contain no packages.
*and* a single package (top-level or otherwise) may be spread over more than one distribution.
IMO, a package that's spread over more than one distribution should probably not be top-level in both distributions. :)
Phillip was (I think) referring to namespace packages. Namespace packages are a very important tool for maintaining some sanity in package naming. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org