On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:37:54 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > d) They need something that isn't part of the standard packages (for > instance BiDi support).
Is there a reason that can't be dlopened too? relaytool makes it much less hassle to write dlopened code. > e) They want to report a crash and need debug symbols to get a valid > backtrace. Red Hat have developed a neat solution for this, the latest binutils can split debug symbols into a separate set of files so you can just install debuginfo packages and gdb will automatically use them. > f) They want to try a patch that someone sent them. How often does that occur, really? I bet about 1% of our users actually do this. > I don't see why that should be a goal at all. You guys need to get rid > of the mindset that building from source is some 1337 thing that mere > mortals are not supposed to do. I wouldn't say not supposed to do, but rather that they shouldn't *have* to do it. > There are plenty of legitimate reasons > for users to build from source, and we need to make sure it works for > them. That's why for instance the configure script is checked into CVS; > it is of course heresy to put generated files in CVS, but it lets users > build without having to fight the autoconf tools. It's for the same > reason that we have wineinstall. Of course I'm all for improving the > binary packages, but it doesn't avoid the need to also support source > builds. Yes, I agree that both routes should be as easy as possible :) I just think we should start telling users who are building from source for no real reason to use binaries instead. thanks -mike
