tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Speed <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Sources in Binary Distributions
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:54:34 GMT
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
> Pier P. Fumagalli at 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 

> 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 

For what it's worth, I would only download the bin+src distro, ie: 
the same one that's misnamed now.

-Paul Speed

View raw message