# Namespace support in pypi

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/namespace-support-in-pypi/1609>\
**Category:** Ideas\
**Created:** [May 6, 2019, 1:34pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/namespace-support-in-pypi/1609 "2019-05-06T13:34:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pf\_moore](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/pf_moore/32/35_2.png) [@pf\_moore](https://discuss.python.org/u/pf_moore)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 1:25pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/namespace-support-in-pypi/1609/17 "2019-05-08T13:25:46Z")

</div>

For cases like this, it would probably be worth the PEP discussing how the transition would work - particularly if people are using `foo.bar` as package names right now, but the namespace version would be `foo-bar` (or vice versa, or whatever). I don’t think that keeping the old names and publishing new versions under the new names is a very good idea - it makes the name clutter on PyPI even worse, and adds to user confusion (should I use `aws_cdk.foo` or `aws_cdk-foo`?)

The transition discussion should also address where there’s a clash right now - with `aws_cdk.official` owned by AWS, and `aws_cdk.impostor` that’s _not_ owned by AWS, how would transitioning to an AWS owned namespace work? Obviously the name of the non-owned package wouldn’t change. So what would change? And how would users perceive that change?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/namespace-support-in-pypi/1609)._