Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated package

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

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 [1]. It was
> removed from the archives because it was abandoned by upstream
> (#751276).

Hrm.

> 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
heuristic, perhaps.

Someone who searches for archived bugs for your source package will
find their search results contain bugs for the previous package of the
same name.

Also, using a different name means you do not need to use an epoch,
which is (in a small way) nicer.

HTH.

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   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.