Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated package
(Apologies if you receive this message twice; I dropped a ball juggling
e-mail identities).
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 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.
FWIW, popcon suggests the number of users declined steadily after the
removal, and has now plateaued at 15 [1].
> To Gard: waiting for a few more opinions and then deciding is a good
> plan.
Will do. Thanks for your feedback so far, everyone.
[1] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=phat
Best,
Gard
Reply to: