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

[Lennart Regebro]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:57 PM, 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 don't think this is a problem, and I don't think domains or
usernames in the package names is a solution even if it is a problem.

> We should not have to come up with a process for recognizing squatters
> on simple package names.  We should have something more systematic,
> IMO.

I also don't think squatting in itself is that much of a problem. Only
once has someone been faster than me in stealing a package name and
that was "skynet". :-)
Pretty much all other package names I've ever come up with has been
free. And when somebody is squatting, I think it can be dealt with
manually, for the most time.

In fact, I'm trying to contact the skynet author now, to see if I can
get my "skynet" in there instead. ;-) [1]

Something I don't like though is the plethora of non-packages, most of
which are test packages of some sort. Just search for "foo". :-) I'd
like that to be cleaned up.

//Lennart

[1] https://github.com/regebro/skynet