On 2024-10-06 Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: [...] > I agree in principle, but I wonder if going through the effort of > introducing a new source package 'signify-mail' and removing the current > 'signify' will give us anything beyond doing the QA package upload to > rename the binary package.
> The only advantage I can identify seems to be if the 'signify-openbsd' > source package would then be able to be renamed to 'signify'. But is > that possible? Are there any earlier examples of re-use of the same > source package name, but for a different package? The linux-2.6 vs > linux analogy is not identical, it is the same source package and there > were no source package namespace re-use happening. [...] Hello Simon, Afaiu Ben gave the rationale in his initial mail: | Yes, I think you should also rename the source package signify | | Debbugs doesn't always properly distinguish source and binary package | names. This goes badly when there are a source and binary package of | the same name, but the binary package is built by a different source | package. If you do not rename signify(src) to signify-mail(src) the bts might mix up bugs against signify(bin) from signify-openbsd(src) with bugs against the source package signify. Renaming signify-openbsd(src) to signify(src) was *not* suggested. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
