> Alastair:
> >o Binary releases are a lot of effort and aren't very portable.
Eric:
> So you want to let one thousand Hugs users suffer!
I consider myself a very limited resource :-)
[...] You will be swamped with bug reports. I must miss the point here.
I am already swamped with bug reports from people who get the
binary release and find it doesn't work right on their machine.
Source releases are much less brittle.
> Anyway, I refuse to use software that does not come with an automatic
> install-shield installation, and wouldn't it be a great pity if you would
> loose me as a Hugs user ;-) Seriously, the most effective way to kill
> Hugs is to stop providing an self-install binary Windows distribution.
I'm not suggesting that we stop providing them.
I hate producing them but I recognise that:
a) it's an important platform
b) since M$ don't provide a C compiler on it as standard, binary
releases are the only effective way to support it.
> BTW when will you distribute a WinCE version?
If you'll buy me a WinCE machine, I'll be happy to do the port.
(The Velo 1 still looks like a good deal I have my doubts about
the Mobilon - what kind of battery life does that colour screen
give you?)
Personally, I'm more interested in porting it to my Palm Pilot -
an awesome little machine (that I'm told can run CAML lite).
DEC WRL's Itsy would be another nice platform to run on. Porting
should be easy since they can run Linux on it.
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "package".
Packages are the Unix equivalent of installshield - only easy to
generate, well documented, aware of revolutionary concepts like
versions and dependencies, etc. It seems that packages can include
either source or binary code - as you like.
Alastair
