new package: "very similar name" block not including archived packages.

[philcockfield]

Creating a new package with a similar name to an existing package, eg:

• @sys/driver-deno-cloud
• @sys/driver-denocloud

Gets caught helpefully by a "very similar name already exists" error:

The new feature of archiving a package does not change the block.

A common scenario would be to archive → then subtly rename the package (while getting the package namespace laid out right in the early days).

Would it make sense to exclude packages from the "block" filter upon "create" ?

[crowlKats]

The problem with lifting this block is that if someone unarchives the archived package, the block basically becomes ineffective

[lucacasonato]

@crowlKats we could also perform the name check upon unarchive.

[philcockfield]

The problem with lifting this block is that if someone unarchives the archived package, the block basically becomes ineffective

Ha, that's super helpful to understand the integrity constraint you're protecting with this. Now I understand.

A public, immutable, forward-only version namespace has some interesting design challenges.

[danielfroz]

Hi, Is there any solution to package renaming?

I am hitting the same problem reported and hitting the same error: "A package with this or a very similar name already exists.".