From:	fox AT cat DOT nyu DOT edu (David Fox)
Subject:	Re: GNU-Win32 distribution question
14 May 1998 01:47:30 -0700 :
Message-ID:	<y5au36urqzu.fsf.cygnus.gnu-win32@dsf.net>
References:	<199805130729 DOT IAA03626 AT linux DOT compd DOT com>
To:	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

"Kevin F. Quinn" <kevq-ml AT banana DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> writes:

> With respect to source distributions - I don't see that there's 
> anything wrong with the "gzipped tarball" approach.

One problem with gzipped tarballs for source distribution is that if
developers are making RPMs for binary distributions, making a gzipped
tarball source distribution is more of an annoyance than simply
uploading the source RPM that automatically results from building the
binary RPM.  Furthermore, source RPMs encode the build instructions
for a package in a form that is directly usable by the machine, while
with tarballs the developer is expected to provide a prose description
of the build and install procedure.  For me as a user, using such a
description is more time consuming and less foolproof than using the
source RPM.  For me as a developer, source RPMs are a more effective
way to manage cross-platform software systems.
-- 
David Fox	   http://www.cat.nyu.edu/fox		xoF divaD
NYU Media Research Lab   fox AT cat DOT nyu DOT edu   baL hcraeseR aideM UYN
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -