[Distutils] conventions or best practice to choose package names?

[Piotr Ozarowski]

[Benoît Bryon, 2012-06-29]
> Le 29/06/2012 12:50, Piotr Ozarowski a écrit :
> >[Benoît Bryon, 2012-06-29]
> >>Le 28/06/2012 14:15, Piotr Ozarowski a écrit :
> >>>[Benoît Bryon, 2012-06-27]
> >>>>http://hg.python.org/peps/file/52767ab7e140/pep-0423.txt
> >>>I think PEP 386 (about versions) should be mentioned in "Relationship
> >>>with other PEPs" section.
> >>Why? Right now, I can't see the relationship between
> >>projects/packages/modules names and versions.
> >The PEP name is "Naming conventions and recipes related to packaging"
> >and version numbers are related to packaging (and naming) for sure.
> Ok. Maybe the title of the PEP is not clear.
> It is related to naming conventions only, and only in
> packaging (i.e. projects, and distributed packages or
> modules, not variables, function or class names).
> 
> Would "naming conventions related to packaging" be better?
> 
> 
> >How about PEP 396 (Module Version Numbers)?
> How are version numbers related to naming?

OK, I admit I shamelessly wanted to promote these two PEPs in as many
places as possible ;-)
"The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
from." and there are way too many Python versioning conventions (and
places where these versions are stored)

> >I just thought "foo.ext.bar" is a nice convention worth mentioning
> >(next to, not instead of "contrib" which is more general than "ext")
> 
> I agree that "foo.ext.bar" seems nice... but it uses 3
> namespace levels. It breaks the "avoid deep nesting"

nevermind then, it was just a suggestion. I feel strongly against the
py/python/lib/bindings/etc. prefix/suffix issue, though (but will not
bother you about it anymore)
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645