begging for pyme name change
Neal H. Walfield
neal at walfield.org
Thu Oct 13 11:25:13 CEST 2016
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:19:58 +0200,
Justus Winter wrote:
> 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.
It seems to me that there is a more fundamental issue: pyme is not a
new package, so changing the name will mean updating all users of the
package. Or, am I not understanding something?
More information about the Gnupg-devel