Use lowercase name for package

[ajnelson-nist]

This patch addresses a runtime issue not found in PR 46.

This project is named INDXParse. A script installed by the packing setup is named INDXParse.py. That script also provides some functionality as a module, exporting symbols re-used in other scripts used in this package.

The package, before this patch, was called INDXParse. Re-use of the name spelled as INDXParse unfortunately caused some runtime issues when attempting to call package-installed scripts from the command line. The last line of the stack trace from calling MFTINDX.py reported this:

ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'INDXParse.MFTINDX'; 'INDXParse' is not a package

A StackOverflow thread (see refs) showed one resolution to this issue was de-conflicting the name of the package from the name of a module in the package. In the StackOverflow thread, adding _base to the included module resolved the poster's issue.

PEP-8 includes a prescription that goes part of the way to resolving the package/module name conflict: Package names are suggested to be lowercase, rather than the mixed-case used by the INDXParse project. This patch applies that convention to the package name.

One matter left unresolved is that PEP-8 also suggests module names be lowercase. If the INDXParse.py file is renamed to indxparse.py, the same ModuleNotFoundError described above is likely to recur.

Since Issue 40 is considering splitting modules from scripts, the question of how to rename INDXParse.py is left for a future patch. This patch is scoped to addressing the runtime issue.

This patch was tested by installing this package into a virtual environment and running MFTINDX.py against a test disk image. That call failed, as the script's full functionality hasn't yet been restored since the Python 2 code state; but it did run to a more interesting internal code point, rather than fail immediately with a ModuleNotFoundError.

References:

• reorganize source code #40
• Transition INDXParse installation to using setup.cfg #46
• https://peps.python.org/pep-0008/#package-and-module-names
• https://stackoverflow.com/a/59362330

[williballenthin]

thanks for the detailed explanation. makes sense to me and the changes look good.

[ajnelson-nist]

I'm glad they look good! I just pushed a catch-up merge to get past the conflict GitHub was reporting.