On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:39 AM Gard Spreemann <g...@nonempty.org> wrote: > 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?
You don't need to bump the epoch since your package has a higher version number than the old package. Thanks, Jeremy Bicha
