[Develop] Miro packages

[will]

I definitely think it's a good thing to do at some point.

It's suggested good practice to do absolute importing rather than 
relative importing because it reduces the possibility of module name 
conflicts.  For example, we bumped into a problem where if the user had 
the BitTorrent package installed, then when running Miro they picked up 
the original BitTorrent package and not the Miro-ized one...  ick. 
That's not a problem anymore because we switched to libtorrent.

I looked into doing this a few months ago when fiddling with static 
analysis stuff--I think I complained to Chris about it.

I'm +1 on doing this, but not for 1.1.


Ben Dean-Kawamura wrote:
> Today I got into a sort of awkward situation when I tried to create a platform
> package for my frontend-backend work.  I quickly found out that there is a
> module in the standard library called platform that conflicted with my name
> choice.  I tried to think of a better name, but the best I could come up with
> is "miroplatform", which I'm not really a fan of at all.
> 
> This got me to thinking, we should put all our modules inside a miro package
> to avoid this sort of thing.  I think we've had name conflicts in the past,
> and it's a pretty annoying problem.
> 
> Do folks think it's worth the work to change this?  I'm sort of think it's a
> good idea, but I don't have that strong of an opinion.  I think it'll take a
> day or so, but I haven't thought too much about potential snags.
> 
> Ben