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

[Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:39 AM Gard Spreemann <gspr@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