On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Jim Fulton <j...@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. > > We should not have to come up with a process for recognizing squatters > on simple package names. We should have something more systematic, > IMO. > > 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. > > For a while, many of us have been pretty careful to use namespaces > for new packages to mitigate this issue. For example, the zc namespace > is a shorter version of com.zope, but at some point, it won't be fair > for us to claim zc for ourselves. > > Jim > > -- > Jim Fulton > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
I am opposed to this. Requiring someone to have purchased a domain adds a significant to publishing a project. If there are no requirements that they have purchased the domain then it's nothing more than a convention and something that anyone who wants to do this can do. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
