[Distutils] Sooner or later, we're going to have to be more formal about how we name packages.
Paul Moore
p.f.moore at gmail.com
Sun Jun 2 00:00:23 CEST 2013
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>
More information about the Distutils-SIG
mailing list