Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated package
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:56:52 +0000
- From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated package
Gard Spreemann writes ("Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated package"):
> I filed an ITP (#920912) regarding a package I'm preparing. The upstream
> name for this package is "phat", which doesn't appear in the archives
> from jessie to the present day. After filing the ITP and uploading my
> package to mentors, I realized that there was an unrelated "phat" with a
> different upstream present in the archives from 2005 to 2014 . It was
> removed from the archives because it was abandoned by upstream
> 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. As two
examples of things that might go wrong:
There are utilities that will download all revisions of a particular
package from snapshot.d.o and make them into a combined history. Such
a utility would unify the history of your package and the unrelated
prior package - unless it had some kind of ad-hoc and unreliable
Someone who searches for archived bugs for your source package will
find their search results contain bugs for the previous package of the
Also, using a different name means you do not need to use an epoch,
which is (in a small way) nicer.
Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.