4 ms·
Every single language with centralized dependency managers should, without a doubt require namespacing for package names. user/package-name group/package-name
by bangaladore 2y ago
Every single language with centralized dependency managers should, without a doubt require namespacing for package names.
user/package-name
group/package-name
etc...
- remram 2y agoThat doesn't fix the problem, that just makes it so every package now has a random prefix. Instead of having to know that "yaml" is provided by "pyyaml", you will have to know it's "ingy/yaml".
- bangaladore 2y agoSure, but combined with other methods, you get something much better. Maybe I invent a protocol today called "hitta" and make a new package called "hitta" I'm pretty much automatically going to be the de facto standard, even if better, more updated implementations exist. Names matter. But if my implementation is called hittaorg/hitta Organizations and users (publishers) can be verified, and the tools integrate correctly; you gain better package context, increase trust, and reduce supply chain risks. Now, if user123 has a better version, they might make user123/hitta Instead of pyhitta-with-new-features or whatever garbage is used today
- remram 2y agoYou mean to encourage other user to make other packages with the same import name? Big no from me. This is taking us backwards! And I don't understand what's preventing users and organization from being verified now?