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?
Thanks.
Best,
Gard
