On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> >> On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > Fair enough. A common variation on this scenario, which avoids > purchasing a domain, > is to use a code hosting domain and project name, so, for example: > org.bitbucket.j1m.foo. > > Of course, using a domain name without owning it is a form of squatting.
All that means is either we move the problem (instead of one shared namespace we two or three common ones) or we do it github-style and just prepend usernames at which point you can skip the whole URI thing because usernames must be unique for reasons of general sanity and I don't think it is a huge deal that a single person can't have two packages of the same name. Github-style namespacing just means that either names all suck (django/django, kennethreitz/requests) or you need to come up with some way to map un-namespaced names to their canonical form and we are more or less back at square one. If people don't mind the sucky names, they can already put that in their package name if the bare version is taken, so QED this is already doable in the current system, it just looks so ugly that no one wants to do it and enforcing the ugly seems like a poor option. --Noah
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
