[misnome]

> I am willing to bet good money that it won't hurt you physically if you just call them "packages".

So, "Packages are the new standard of distributing packages, and replace packages" is clearer to you?

[pdimitar]

EDIT: Reduced my original comment to this:

This only outlines that the article is very niche and not very interesting to be posted for non-Python audience.

--- ORIGINAL COMMENT:

Need I explain that if you arrive at such a title you would have to reevaluate if it's worth posting at all? Apparently I need to explain it. ;)

This article is more or less pointless anyhow. Using better terminology would have made that clearer much earlier in the process IMO.

[Balladeer]

This "article" is a 10+ year-old website that's been tracking an ecosystem-wide migration from one style of preparing python code for distribution to another, more robust style of preparation.

[pdimitar]

This would have been an awesome introduction paragraph! Would immediately give context to bystanders like myself.

[rvnx]

You wouldn't have to say it even

[jasonlotito]

"99% of top Fooz packages are using new package system"

vs

"99% of top Fooz packages are lame"

[joe-user]

To consider that the only option is rather reductionist. For example, simply add a version, and to use the original title instead of inventing one:

> 99% of top Python packages are now on version 2

[thunky]

It's not version 2 if it's an independent project.

[joe-user]

That's true, but the argument being made was one where "packages" and "packages" was the point of contention. While they're not versions as in numbers, there's plenty of existing work that have similar names, which accomplishes the same goal such as `venv`, `virtualenv`, `python-virtualenv`, `pyenv`, etc. in the Python community.