[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:14:42 -0800 |
s> Making multiple builds available is an admin PITA (if you know how to
s> do better, please advise, but that's been my experience) and the disk
s> space can add up fast (since modularized installs are detested by most
s> users; they want a one-file-download-and-no-questions-asked-install).
Unless I'm missing something you are echoing what I said:
d> In that case, I would think that the only drawbacks to
d> our providing both versions (debug or not) would be disk
d> space at GNU (and other sites for downloading) and
d> preparation time for Emacs developers (twice the work,
d> whatever it might be).
I was asking whether those are the only drawbacks for Emacs dev - they are the
only ones I could think of. You seem to be confirming that they are (and
emphasizing their importance).
"Shipping" seems to have disappeared from the discussion, so I suppose my guess
that we don't do any shipping was also accurate.
Thanks for the clarification.
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, (continued)
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Lennart Borgman, 2010/11/23
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/11/23
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/11/23
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Jason Rumney, 2010/11/23
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Lennart Borgman, 2010/11/23
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/11/23
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Stefan Monnier, 2010/11/24
- Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Sean Sieger, 2010/11/25
- RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Drew Adams, 2010/11/23
- RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/11/23
- RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries,
Drew Adams <=
- RE: emacs-20101122 windows binaries, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/11/24