begging for pyme name change

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On Tue 2016-11-01 03:48:24 -0400, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> Am Samstag 29 Oktober 2016 18:05:24 schrieb Werner Koch:
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 23:08, dkg at fifthhorseman.net said:
>> > If any gpgme developers think this is worth doing, please go ahead and
>> > claim the "gpg" name on pypi, and you're welcome to merge my patch.
>>
>> I think this is a good idea.  Justus, what do you think?
>
> Again I think that "gnupg" is better,
> with "gpgme" as the second best alternative.
> (See my post from the 19th about the "brand".)

Yes, you mentioned this, but i didn't see any proposal to deal with the
fact that name "gnupg" is currently already taken, both as a pypi
package ("source package name") and as a python module name ("import
gnupg"), with the same fairly sophisticated package:

   https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gnupg

While we might be able to convince the author of that package to
deprecate it and transfer the name to the GnuPG upstream team, it's not
clear how we would help any existing users/dependencies of the module to
transition if we just squat the namespace and break the API.

Hence, the choice of "gpg", which doesn't have a problem with the pypi
package name, and has only a very limited and unsophisticated (and
already dangerously broken) API.

I understand why you think this is "second best", and i think in a world
without technical debt or any pre-existing deployed software, i'd agree
with you.  As it stands, i want to move forward with something with a
sensible name that only requires a hill of work, and not a mountain ;) I
hope you'll agree that this is an acceptable tradeoff, and still an
improvement over "pyme3/pyme" in terms of name recognition and
usability.

Regards,

        --dkg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 930 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20161101/c4b5976f/attachment.sig>