control: severity -1 serious Hello Sandro,
On Sun 14 Mar 2021 at 09:17PM -04, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> > well, ftp-masters approved this package since it passed thru NEW, if >> > there was a concern on their side i'd expect them to have voiced out >> > by now. >> >> From the #debian-ftp IRC channel: >> >> <spwhitton> that is against policy even if dak accepted it > > i see Sean is in cc here, so i'll let him explain if there's any > technical implication of the fact ftp-masters accepted a package which > had the same name of a previously renamed package. To be clear, I intended to refer to Debian Policy, not anything dak-related. It's also worth noting that NEW processing is not perfect, and something like this is especially difficult to catch :) >> > no, i see no reason to do so: upstream chose the name `ppmd` >> >> The only thing I can think of is that using the previous name prevents >> someone else from reintroducing the previous ppmd codebase. > > it's been removed since more than 6 years, i think if someone wants to > reintroduce that project in debian, it's on them to find a > non-conflicting name, no? Per Policy 3.2.2 this is actually RC, and there is no length of time after which it's Policy-compliant to reuse package name--version pairs: "the version numbers which a binary package must not reuse includes the version numbers of any versions of the binary package ever accepted into the archive". Please take a look at that section of Policy. Unfortunately, I think you're going to have to introduce an epoch. -- Sean Whitton
