Query: Transfer/repurpose of a PyPI package name with agreement of the owner (me)?

The authors of pretextbook · PyPI asked me if I would transfer ownership of pretext · PyPI, so they could reuse the name for their package before its 1.0 release. I’m inclined to agree, is this okay wrt PyPI rules/norms.

  1. Is changing the purpose of a PyPI name frowned upon? Does it depend on age/obscurity?
  2. If such a transfer is acceptable, is there a deprecation period/procedure I should follow?

I’m the author/owner of pretext · PyPI, it has very few users (if any, 24 downloads last month) and the last release was in 2016. I’m no longer using it or updating it. There aren’t any Linux distribution pakages of it, to my knowledge.

In contract pretextbook had 2800 downloads last month, and is actively maintained. In fact most of the pretext downloads are probably accidental, the requestor reports

We currently deploy the CLI at pretextbook · PyPI and are approaching a 1.0 release. Our users are mostly university faculty who need a lot of support (PreTeXt is often their first time wrangling things like pip, Git, etc.), and one common issue we find is that they frequently try to pip install pretext rather than pretextbook.
My thought is that this should not disrupt any current users of your pretext package as they can continue to specify a <1.0 release. If this is something you’d be comfortable with, please let me know and we can figure out next steps.

With thanks, Alex

ETA: The guidence I’ve found (PEP 541 – Package Index Name Retention | peps.python.org) deals mainly with cases of the owner being uncontactable

PyPI itself doesn’t have a particular opinion, we assume that people who are closest to the projects in question will have the best sense of whether something makes sense in their case or not.

Given what you’ve said here, I personally would not feel bad transferring this project.


Relevant: Stop Allowing deleting things from PyPI? - #35 by ofek