On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:38:43PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Using the domain name as part of the *upstream* library name is useful
> for upstream authors because of how Go's built-in dependency management
> tools work. Go integrates dependency management into the language and
> the `go` tool itself. Re-using the upstream library name is useful
> because they have already disambiguated for us.
> 
> I don't intend to be rude, but I'm not going to put much effort into
> responding to further comments that are not based on knowledge of how Go
> handles package / dependency management with its built-in tools, or
> modular programming in Go, in general. Already I used tons of my free
> time to learn this stuff, just so I could make Guix packages of Go
> software. Please meet me where I am.
> 
> Again, I don't see an ethical problem here, so any motivation for me to
> participate in this discussion, as a volunteer, must be technical. If
> it's *wrong* to name the packages in this way, I will behave
> differently.

I replied too harshly here, and I apologize for that. For me, this
conversation really started on the wrong foot.