Also, I propose to shorten or move the "terminology" section in
another document (another pep or in packaging documentation):
* it would simplify the document
* we'd better share the terminology between several documents.
+1
There is no reason why every package should use your approach,and
some developers will be opposed to your conventions.
"Rationale" section used to point out that current (missing) naming
rules lead to problems, such as duplicate packages/modules or
inconsistent project/package names. Shouldn't we consider them as issues?
But, whatever the value of those arguments, I understand some
developers will be opposed to proposed conventions.
That's conventions, not rules. PEP8 for instance, says that the rules
are made to be changed in case there really is a need to, for your
project. Having conventions is not about making everyone agree, but
about having everyone using the same methods to avoid confusion IMO.
Maybe should we state this clearly.
Alexis
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
