On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:57 PM, 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.
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 _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig