Do we have a formal convention for the naming of packages and/or the naming of the modules they contain? There is a recommended set of categories and in general I believe
library authors try and follow the previously established names.
How are name collisions supposed to be avoided? In the case of pureMD5 I looked at the other modules and decided to name mine something with a proper hierarchy that doesn't collide with 'Crypto'. Hence the extra "Pure" part of the module name.
I believe that an informal process, such as what I did, is much better than formalizing every aspect of Haskell/Hackage libraries. The cost in terms of processes / bureaucracy are just too much to formalize everything. Suggestion: Have Hackage warn when a library is uploaded that has Module conflicts with other libraries. Thomas