Namespaces are a solution or mitigation to some problem, but that problem is not malicious typo-squatting.
e.g. bevy and amethyst have claimed a load of crate names like bevy-x or amethyst_y because they thought they might release an official addon to their framework to handle those areas. e.g. bevy did it with this https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy-crate-reservations/blob/m... and amethyst did it the long way as far as I know
Organisations wanting to have consistent package names and users wanting to identify related packages are smaller problems than the "all the good names are taken" and "packages can impersonate other packages with typos" problems.
I will also say this: at the level of personal preference, and given my understanding of many other package ecosystems, I would have preferred namespaces from the start. But I don't feel very strongly one way or the other to be honest.
There is a related RFC open: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3243
> "packages can impersonate other packages with typos" problems
I was pointing out that this is specifically not solved at all by namespacing. A package's name includes its namespace, and the namespace can be typo-squatted. (EDIT: Or wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Perhaps I'm confused by what "these" refers to in your last sentence.)
The only problem I see is that I don't know who owns ripgrep, so sticking some random name in front of it only adds to my confusion.
