@woju commented on this pull request.
> +Format: 1.0-rpm
+Build-Architecture: $(uname -m)
+Source: $RPM_PACKAGE_NAME
+Epoch: $RPM_PACKAGE_EPOCH
+Version: ${RPM_PACKAGE_VERSION}
+Release: ${RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE}
+Architecture: $RPM_ARCH
+Build-Origin: $(getos)
+Build-Path: $RPM_BUILD_DIR
> You're defining an rpm-based format.
This is actually a debian-defined format[^1] and at the time we was mocking
this format[^2] we thought it would be good to maintain compatibility, because
we expect much of the tooling will be shared. Obviously things like package
version specification will be RPM-specific (hence `-rpm` in `Format:`), but the
rest, like exchange, signature verification, comparison etc. does not need to
be different. So the original intention is to maintain as close format to the
original as possible.
[^1]: https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/BuildinfoFiles,
https://manpages.debian.org/bullseye/dpkg-dev/deb-buildinfo.5.en.html
[^2]: https://github.com/woju/rpmbuildinfo during [Reproducible Builds Summit
2016](https://reproducible-builds.org/events/berlin2016/)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1532#discussion_r727421752_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
