Why not to use .deb for source packages
In no particular order ...
1. Source packages have different kinds of dependencies to binary
packages.
2. You can have several versions of the same source package installed
at once.
3. Source packages can be unpacked in various different places.
4. A source packages lives in one or two directory trees and can be
deleted using `rm -rf'.
5. Built source packages _have_ to be removed with `rm -rf' because
they are full of files that weren't there when they were installed.
6. Source packages should not specify the permissions and ownerships
of the files in them. (Beyond the `x' flag.)
7. There is no operation on a binary package analogous to that of
building a source package.
8. Source packages have to be unpackable on a much wider range of
unices (and other systems) than binary packages.
9. Installing a source package to look at it should not involve
executing parts of it.
10. There is no need to keep a record of which source packages are
installed.
11. Installing a source package should not be a privileged operation.
12. Source packages do not need to be configured at installation
time.
13. Source packages are intended to be edited.
14. It is good to keep source packages as close as possible to that
provided by the upstream authors.
15. ...
I could probably produce more but I'm bored now. Can we please put
this issue to bed ? Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a
good idea.
Ian.
Reply to: