>> The discussion back when it was decided weighted things back and
>> forth. The main thing is that we'd include an extra build dependency
>> for win32, which would be the Microsoft toolkit, several hundred Mb
>> to download just to build a 32 byte file.
>
>Think about what "open source" means. It doesn't mean that we
>give our
>users binary blobs compiled on some guy's machine, because it's too
>inconvenient to obtain the build tools. If it's too inconvenient to
>obtain build tools, you use a binary distribution anyway.
How is this so different from the fact that we distribute the
"configure" script? People can just go download autoconf, right? Or
flex/bison output files. If it's too inconvenient to obtain build tools,
use a binary distribution.
It's not like we don't provide the source. You can rebuild it if you
want to. (Or just look at the file and realise it's probably nothing to
worry about)
>On closer inspection this stuff should probably be moved to
>src/utils in
>any case. It's clearly not a user binary, so it doesn't belong under
>src/bin.
Yeah, that doesn't sounds all wrong. It is of course a different issue
alltogether... I *think* (but can't say I know) that the reason it went
into src/bin was that there is no actual place for "generic libs".
interfaces and pl are, well, interfaces and pls. And utils/ don't
currently install things. But it could certainly be moved there and
installed from there, doesn't really matter.
//Magnus