I’m not sure I follow. I assume “as it should be” refers to crates, with no mechanism for name ownership other than first-come, first-served. You name any Go p

I’m not sure I follow. I assume “as it should be” refers to crates, with no mechanism for name ownership other than first-come, first-served. You name any Go package based on a URL you control (and you can refer to any underlying source control by returning appropriate metadata from that URL). Package names that are URL-based is an arbitrary decision, but it seems like it at least solves that problem. Personally I’m much more a fan of that, since otherwise you need to put far too much faith in a single provider (crates), and enable a whole class of attacks and ownership squabbles. Better to just punt this to the already-solved DNS and web ecosystem. I just can’t agree that a single centralized repository is “as it should be”.