[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wanting to package wpoison

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:10:25PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

> I mean what's the practical difference between (say) distributing a
> compiled binary of program `X' as opposed to (say) distributing a
> shar file called X which, when invoked, stashes the source code for 
> (say) X.c in a temp file, invokes the C compiler on it, and then
> copies the resulting binary back over the original executable shar
> file `X'?

It's going to be more than a little annoying when you decide to reuse
the program in, for example, an embedded system where there simply
aren't the resources to include a compiler in the system but there's no
problem throwing a CD with the source in the box.  Never mind the
bootstrapping issues if the thing you're talking about is something like
the kernel or init.  This is also pretty much the case with larger
packages and older architectures like m68k too - things like GCC are
slow enough to build on a modern machine, never mind something with less
RAM, less CPU and less disk bandwidth.

I realse this doesn't apply in this case but there are perfectly sound
reasons for wanting binary packages.

"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Reply to: