Re: BDF Considered Harmful?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:31:48AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes:
> > Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > This is not the right analogy. A C source file by itself cannot be
> > > run without having been compiled while, AFAICT from the given
> > > description, a BDF "source" file can be. Make an analogy with Perl
> > > source file, it will work better: they do have copyright notices
> > > and comments, yet we ship them in binary packages.
> > With Perl you have no choice. AFAIK there is no binary Perl format.
> Try the analogy with Python, then. One can ship either the source file
> ‘foo.py’, or the compiled bytecode ‘foo.pyc’, and the recipient can
> use either one as a Python module.
We ship .py files in the source because the .pyc as generated on the build
host is not guaranteed to be compatible with the python on the target host.
That argument also does not apply to BDF.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: