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

[Nick Coghlan]

I'm with Jason in the "maybe eventually, but not right now" camp.

Namespace collisions are indeed a possibility and a potential concern, both
in the distribution namespace and the top level import namespace.

The fact there is no 1to1 mapping between distribution names and the import
namespace means that informal conflict avoidance is already possible -
prepending "<qualifier>-" to the desired package name makes it possible to
publish it alongside another distribution using the same name without
having to change the top level import location. If the distributed packages
use explicit relative imports appropriately, an integrator may even be able
to use them side by side by dropping them into higher level namespace
packages.

Java's "use the domain name" approach simply outsources the conflict
resolution to a third party, by *requiring* that publishers acquire a
domain name prior to publication. I prefer our model of initially
*assuming* a lack of conflict to lower barriers to publication.

I do think we need to better handle cases where the assumption breaks down,
but we shouldn't forget namespacing is already possible.

Cheers,
Nick.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130602/247a208f/attachment.html>