FWIW: We have been using debian packaging from a private repository for the last three years to configure virtual machines.
As a subversion shop, at least, the extraneous files generated by a build aren't an issue because we simply svn-clean after a build. I believe "git clean" does the equivalent operation. I concur that hiding the build directory with a leading dot is less friendly. It takes a while to understand how package creation / building works, and hiding information from users will make it more difficult. -- Gerard Weatherby| Application Architect NMRbox | Department of Molecular Biology and Biophysics | UConn Health 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-6406 Phone: 860 679 8484 uchc.edu ________________________________________ From: Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 9:23 AM To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Cc: debian-d...@lists.debian.org; debhel...@packages.debian.org Subject: Re: RFC: Standardizing source package artifacts build paths *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. *** I'm concerned about a leading . at least for: * the debian/tmp replacement * the replacement for the package install directories under debian. I think that maintaining those directories such that ls shows them will be more friendly for new maintainers. So I'd prefer something like debian/build rather than debian/.build for at least those directories. I don't care as much about substvars, debhelper intermediates, debhelper logs and the like.
