[Python-Dev] PEP 423 : naming conventions and recipes related to packaging (original) (raw)

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Wed Jun 27 12:50:55 CEST 2012

Hello,

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:08:45 +0200 Benoît Bryon <benoit at marmelune.net> wrote:

Hi,

Here is an informational PEP proposal: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/52767ab7e140/pep-0423.txt Could you review it for style, consistency and content?

There is one Zen principle this PEP is missing:

Flat is better than nested.

This PEP seems to promote the practice of having a top-level namespace denote ownership. I think it should do the reverse: promote meaningful top-level packages (e.g. "sphinx") as standard practice, and allow an exception for when a piece of software is part of a larger organizational body.

(i.e., "Community-owned projects can avoid namespace packages" should be the first item in the PEP and renamed so that it appears common rule)

I don't think we want a Java-like landscape where everyone operates behind their closed fences à la org.myorganization.somecommunity and where package names shout "ownership" rather than "functionality". (*)

Also, do note that "packaging" is ambiguous in Python-land.

(*) (for the record, companies internally can do what they want; this PEP AFAICT addresses the case of publicly released packages)

Regards

Antoine.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list