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.
