(Apologies if you receive this message twice; I dropped a ball juggling e-mail identities).
Ian Jackson <ijack...@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