On 2/6/19 4:31 PM, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> Gard Spreemann writes ("Reusing source package name of long-removed,
>> unrelated package"):
>>> I understand that 3.3.2 of the policy mandates that I at least bump the
>>> epoch, but I wanted to ask the list to make sure: is reusing the source
>>> package name of an unrelated, long-removed package like this OK, or
>>> should I consider using a different name?
>>
>> I would recommend using a different source package name.
>
> Thanks for your input. I'll wait a bit and see if there are other
> opinions before renaming the source.
>
> By the way, is it OK if the (renamed) source package produces a binary
> package with the same name as one of those produced by the old source?
>
I would say reusing binary package names is usually worse than reusing
source package names, in that it's a lot more likely to affect users.
Sometimes it happens anyway, but IMO it's best avoided.
Cheers,
Julien
