On Thursday, December 11, 2014 09:23:36 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Dec 12, 2014, at 08:36 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > >Even for the source package name, “pathlib” is IMO too general. This is > >specifically a library for Python programmers only; its source package > >name should not grab a generic name like “pathlib”. > > Why not first-come-first-served?
If it's not for general use, a package name that sounds like it is would be potentially confusing. If it doesn't ship a python module/extension (in which case python-pathlib would be great, since that's what you should call the binary), then pathlib- python would also work. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
