# Python packaging documentation feedback and discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Packaging\ **Created:** [March 9, 2023, 7:38pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/python-packaging-documentation-feedback-and-discussion/24833 "2023-03-09T19:38:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 113
**Author:** ![CAM-Gerlach](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/cam-gerlach/32/3688_2.png) [@CAM-Gerlach](https://discuss.python.org/u/CAM-Gerlach)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2023, 5:53am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/python-packaging-documentation-feedback-and-discussion/24833/113 "2023-06-12T05:53:34Z")
> [@petersuter](#): > > [6. Modules — Python 3.11.4 documentation](https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/modules.html#packages) does not use the term “import package”. Right, though that documentation doesn’t discuss distribution packaging at all—there, “package” is only ever defined and used to mean an import package. Its certainly arguable that the unambiguous term should be used there as well, though as the reader will presumably read that tutorial as they are first leading how to program in Python, well before they get to sharing their code with others through distribution packaging and they are taught even what that is, it seems to me to be less potentially confusing than its use in various areas of, say, the [packaging.python.org](http://packaging.python.org) site, never mind third party blogs and articles. > [@petersuter](#): > > I wonder if it would not be less futile to switch to a different term there (e.g. “folder module”?) There’s no obvious reason this concept has to be confusingly called anything related to packages instead of modules. In hindsight, given how Python and world evolved in the meantime, it certainly _might_ have been a better idea to use terminology like “[file/directory] module” rather than repurposing the word “package” to mean a directory of modules that can be imported (as opposed to the distribution-oriented container around them). However, I’m not really sure how realistic it would be to change it at this point, given it is a long-established term fairly deeply embedded in all kinds of names and parts of the language, import system, stdlib and distribution packaging infrastructure, and the fact that the unambiguous term “distribution package” would continue to need to be used for at least the length of the (5-10+ year) transition period, in order to continue to be unambitious, until the revised usage is widely used and accepted. Considering we’re _still_ weaning people off direct invocation of `setup.py` for building 5+ years from that being deprecated, and probably will be for years to come, I’m not optimistic, and such name changes also consume valuable and highly limited churn budget already strained in recent years, with modern packaging standards only now finally starting to stabilize. > [@petersuter](#): > > The Python language itself doesn’t seem to use the word package anywhere for this. I’m not sure what you mean, sorry. Just in the Python language/stdlib and its official documentation alone, “package” in the context of “import package” (with a few exceptions, core Python does not deal with distribution packaging nearly at all—make of that what you will) is used, for example: - Over 100 times just in [the import system section of the official Python Language Reference](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/import.html), the canonical specification of the Python language, all to refer to “import packages” (distribution packages are not discussed at all), including being the title of the [top-level section describing them](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/import.html#packages), and several other section headings - In [hundreds of pages of the Python docs](https://docs.python.org/3/search.html?q=package&check_keywords=yes&area=default), nearly all in the context of “import package” - As a highlighted [glossary entry](https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html#term-package), with the meaning of “import package” - In the [` __package__ ` dunder attribute for import packages](https://docs.python.org/3/reference/import.html?highlight= __package__ #package__), and in the [`types.ModuleType.__package__`](https://docs.python.org/3/library/types.html?highlight=__package __#types.ModuleType.__ package__) describing their type - In the name of the [`pkgutil` standard library module](https://docs.python.org/3/library/pkgutil.html?highlight=pkg#module-pkgutil), which deals exclusively (or nearly so )with import packages (to which the name refers) - As the name of the [`importlib.resources.Package` class](https://docs.python.org/3/library/importlib.resources.html?highlight=package#importlib.resources.Package), which reprisents an import package So, I’m a little confused what you’re trying to say, sorry. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/python-packaging-documentation-feedback-and-discussion/24833)._