[Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 04:20:47 EST 2017
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 13 November 2017 at 17:33, Ethan Smith <ethan at ethanhs.me> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
PyPI doesn't distinguish between the names 'foo-stubs' and 'foostubs' -- they get normalized together. So even if you use 'foo-stubs' as the directory name on sys.path to avoid collisions at import time, it still won't allow someone to distribute a separate 'foostubs' package on PyPI.
If you do go with a fixed naming convention like this, the PEP should probably also instruct the PyPI maintainers that whoever owns 'foo' automatically has the right to control the name 'foo-stubs' as well. Or maybe some tweak to PEP 541 is needed. As I understand it however, the distribution name need not map to to the package name in any way. So regardless of if foo-stubs is seen as foostubs, I could name the distribution Albatross if I wished, and install the foo-stubs package into site/dist-packages, and it would work. Also I'm not sure if the PyPI change would require an edict from a PEP, but if so, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea, I think it would be nice to default the stub packages to the owners of the normal packages (people should, to my understanding, be able to make alternate distributions without hassle).
Questions like the following aren't new ones:
- If I am responsible for the name 'foo' on PyPI, how much influence, if any, should I have over the use of 'foo' as a prefix in other distribution package names?
- If I ship a distribution package through PyPI containing an import package named 'bar', how much influence, if any, should I have over the use of 'bar' as an import package or module name in other distribution packages?
I expect that the PSF will need to address them directly some day, but I don't think PEP 561 itself needs to address them (and the first version of PEP 541 probably won't either).
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 561 rework
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]