begging for pyme name change

[Justus Winter]

Hello :)

Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> writes:

> Hi, folks.  Don't know where else to bring this up so trying here.
>
> I am very, very happy that gnupg upstream is now shipping well-supported
> python bindings.  However, I find that the choice of name for these new
> bindings to be incredibly unfortunate.  Is there any way the name "pyme"
> could be changed to something more sensible?  That name is so
> unfortunate for so many reasons.
>
> The name has zero reference to it's functionality, i.e. gpg bindings.
> Worse, the use of the long-discouraged "py" prefix makes it seem as if
> it's a python version of the "me" library, whatever that is.  Is the
> name supposed to mean "python made easy"?  Why couldn't the name just be
> "python-gpg", so that users just "import gpg"?  I feel like naming the
> bindings "fred" would be less confusing.

I understand and I'm with you.  However, there are so many GPGME
bindings/GnuPG wrappers for Python out there, that many names are
already taken.  As to your suggestion, a cursory search on PyPI revealed
that there is already pygpg, py-pgp, and python-gnupg.  There is also
pygpgme and GPG.py.

We considered renaming our pyme, but we did not want to add to the
already confusing large pile of names.  At least pyme sticks out.

However, if you can come up with a good name that doesn't sound too
similar to some existing name, feel free to offer suggestions.


Cheers,
Justus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20161013/c5e67401/attachment.sig>