Amending PEP 427 (and PEP 625) on package normalization rules

[vbrozik (Václav Brožík)]

@pf_moore

I understand the use case of wanting to assign semantics to the segments of a package name that contains dots (my_org.my_package) but the analogy with namespace packages is IMO false - project names are not the same as (import) package names.

While “project names are not the same as (import) package names” I think it should not be prevented to name the project the same as its only import package name. …and allowing hierarchy in import names (using namespace import packages) is only a good thing. So I think allowing to express hierarchy using the dot character would be certainly beneficial.

If we want to allow namespaces for project names, we should standardise them properly and make them “official”.

Having namespaces would be great! IMHO It should be standardised. We can hear how difficult it could be to get a suitable project name:

@ofek

My 3 largest projects (Hatch included) involved thinking of a name, realizing it’s taken, verifying near-zero downloads, emailing owner to ask, then scheduling a time to delete or rushing to upload if they responded “just did it”.