On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 09:25 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > I like this option because it still works well if we ever decide to > fix a fundamental flaw in the Debian source package layout. I suspect whether that's a fundamentally is a matter or personal taste. On this point my taste aligns with yours. I've used both rpm source format and the Debian one, and IMO the rpm one is mostly better. The primary reason is the one you've mention here: they maintain the separation between the source, rpm spec, and build areas's far more cleanly than Debian does. This makes some common flaws one often flaws in Debian packages just disappear: like cleaning up the source directory after a build. Where the rpm format goes wrong is it then beaks that separation in the actually .srpm format by putting the upstream source in and rpm bits in one file, which is of course what Debian gets right. Sigh. On the positive side, rpm and deb seem to be gradually converging in a sort of co-evolution.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part