"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > > So I started to look at how we distribute source in other > binary packages.
You mean other ASF packages, other open-source packages, or specifically the httpd project packages? > While reviewing those changes to the 2.0 package, I looked > at how we package both 1.3 and 2.0 on Unix. And I discovered > that the inclusion of the src tree was relatively non-existant. > The unix httpd binaries were just that (binary). Uh? In <URL:http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/linux/> (for instance), *all* of the .tar.gz files contain the source. (You can't count how we've done the 2.0 packages because we haven't released it yet; in 1.3b days, the main difference between a binary and an alpha was that we built and included a binary 'httpd' for the former -- but the source was still in the tarball.) The issue was whether we included a binary with the always-supplied source, not whether we included the source with a binary. It's this basic change in how we distribute our work on which I'm trying to get a handle. > And those with both requirements aren't left out - they do > the same as any unix admin who wants sources and the binaries, > grab 'em both. Which is what appears to be the departure, the discussion of which I want to read. > There is no way to continue to proliferate this. Explain that remark, please.. I don't think I understand what you mean. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
