Re: [Freeglut-developer] Windows Libraries With Distribution? (was RE: [Freeglut-developer ] Bug Report [ 1094940 ] Project files probably out-of-sync)

[Richard R. <sf...@ol...>]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:36:19AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> Steve Baker wrote:
> >Mike A. Harris wrote:
> >
> >>If supplying anything prebuilt for Windows users, please make separate
> >>binary tarballs for this, rather than including prebuilt binaries in
> >>the source code distribution tarballs.
 [...]
> >I'm not saying we shouldn't do this - but it's always been my view
> >that a source distribution should contain *JUST* the sources and
> >the means to build them.
>=20
> That's essentially what I just said more or less.
>=20
> In general it is very *bad* practice, to include precompiled
> binaries or libraries in source code as it:

I find it interesting that so much effort has been engaged by you
to announce (and then reinforce) what has always been said: Make
a WIN32 binary release (no one ever suggested doing something
as patently wrong as including WIN32 binaries in the source
distribution).


> In general, if anyone has a need for precompiled binaries of
> anything, it should be built by the project or someone else,
> and made into separate binary tarballs or packages of some sort

Given that the target users are those who don't have software
tools, we are basically talking about WIN32 users.  For them,
you do *not* want tarballs.  .zip archives are better for them.

Some other SourceForge packages do this kind of thing already.


--=20
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/