On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 08:16:33PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > For two reasons, I would not advocate including any binaries in the > > package, only source code. One is that we should avoid any indication > > that we are distributing a "medical device", per the FDA definition, as > > the FDA regulates the distribution of such software, whether or not you > > charge money for it. The second is that binaries depend strongly on > > which Lisp compiler and runtime system you choose to create them, so it > > is best to let users choose their Lisp compiler and build their own.
To be fair to the argument: While the first part (the FDA one) is bullocks, the second part (about the Lisp compiler dependancy) may be a much more salient point. Better experts need to speak up on that. I do see packages compiling Lisp in postinst. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
