On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote: > > > Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit > > silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to > > distribute seperate source packages for each one. > > > > For c++ at least there is a big difference, the source distribution created > by the build just requires configure to be run. Otherwise the full and up to > date set of autoconf/automake tools are needed. I'm not sure I see that as a big deal, anybody who's likely to being doing this would likely have an up to date set of autotools anyway and ./bootstrap --stuff is just as easy to type (although less familiar) as ./configure. It's not really my area though, and if the C++ team want a dist'd tar I'm happy to oblige. > For python and ruby having a small and focused download also seems better > (though I agree its not significantly different from whats in the svn). It's the testing burden more than anything else, at least one language in the previous RC required more than I thought it did to build sucesfully. - Aidan -- aim/y!:aidans42 g:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/ "We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to each other."
