"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> Pier P. Fumagalli at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > [ ] - +1 Remove the sources [I will help in the process, meaning do the job]
> > [ ] - +0 Remove the sources [I can't help, won't help]
> > [X] - -0 Leave the sources [But since I don't volunteer this is not binding]
> > [ ] - -1 Are you nuts? Sources are there and there have to remain.
> >
> > Comments: (required for -1)
>
> It's a totally pointless discussion... Everyone always included sources in
> binary distros...
Everyone who? jakarta/apache? I would agree with that. Other
projects seem to name binary and source distributions appropriately.
I would at the very least argue that the name "binary distro" is
wrong.
> So, I'm for the peace and quiet and leave things as are
> now. But, since I'm a nice guy, I don't make it pending...
> (Pointless to overiterate on the advantages to see the sources with the
> binaries, like the same .class and .java files all toghether..
> Yadayadayada). But I'm just wasting bandwidth (like the rest of this
> thread!)
>
> On a sidenote... If we have an installer (like under Windows) I vote -1 for
> removing sources from that, and make it an optional component. So, my -0 is
> only for tarballs/zipballs (balls!) bah! (Go Remy!)
>
> Pier
I personally don't understand what the big deal is. Some people
want a binary only distribution, some want a binary+source
distribution. Why not provide both? (Easy for me to say as a
lurker.)
For what it's worth, I would only download the bin+src distro, ie:
the same one that's misnamed now.
-Paul Speed
