From: Distutils-SIG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Donald Stufft Sent: Saturday, 01 June, 2013 15:30 To: holger krekel Cc: distutils sig Subject: Re: [Distutils] Sooner or later, we're going to have to be more formal about how we name packages. On Jun 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, holger krekel <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 11:57 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: 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. I wonder if we could allow people/groups to apply (to humans) for a namespace which they can subsequently control, like the "zc.*" one. So for example if the django community wants to introduce the concept of "vetted" plugins/addons, they could move to manage "dj.*" or so. I think this example highlights some of the challenges with registering/controlling namespaces - who owns what and what is the meaning of a (distribution) package name? For example, what is the namespace used for an endorsed django plugin written by zope corporation? This problem is not present now, as the author can choose the domain which is most relevant to that plugin and its users. If there's some expectation that it should appear in a namespace managed by another organization, that necessitates a coordination between the namespace owner/manager and the project author. I think more people would claim namespaces when namespaces are better supported in Python. My expectation is Python 3.3 namespace package support will ease that challenge (when it becomes a dominant version). My inclination is to say it's not a huge problem, and later is preferable than sooner.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
