There are a number of reasons why you might be doing this, and that has some bearing.
Are you extracting code into a library to be shared by other modules in the same com.domain.appName application, or for a desktop or mobile version of a web client? If so, then you just want to leave the package name as it is
, simply putting it in a library and then including it back into the app. That's the zero-code solution.
If you're planning to submit them for inclusion in the PureMVC repositories, then specific advice for packaging can be found in this post: http://forums.puremvc.org/index.php?topic=142.0
Are you just packaging some convenient classes that you use in nearly all the apps you write? Or are you planning to put out a library that talks to your webservices so that developers everywhere can build clients to talk to them? Either way, give the library a name.
I wouldn't put puremvc in the path of the package necessarily. If you're architecting around PureMVC, that's a given. What's missing is the utility library name.
Would likely become:
Packaging is an art. Though you will see some long packages here at PureMVC.org, every node in the package has a long-considered reason for being there. As a result I can easily hand-type pretty much any package in the system without hesitation.