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

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

Julien Cristau writes ("Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated package"):
> I would say reusing binary package names is usually worse than reusing
> source package names, in that it's a lot more likely to affect users.
> Sometimes it happens anyway, but IMO it's best avoided.

To an extent that depends how many people are likely to have had the
previous binary package installed, still, and where it might be
referred to (eg in dependencies).  So the problem with reusing a
binary package name becomes less severe, the longer the gap between
the two uses of the name.

Also it is more important that the binary package is easily
discovrable or even guessable.

So I think it's more of a tradeoff than with a source package name:
reusing a source package name is IMO almost never (maybe never at all)
the right idea.  I think reusing a binary package name is sometimes
better than picking a new name.

To Gard: waiting for a few more opinions and then deciding is a good
plan.

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.