Re: [Chicken-users] eliminate the Chicken Windows binary distribution?

[Daishi Kato]

I see your point.

BTW, the Linux binary distribution also seems good to me.
I think there are many people who do not compile source code,
but are interested in Chicken.

--daishi

On 11/7/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
> Daishi Kato wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I guess it's still useful to keep the Windows binary distribution,
> > even if the installation path is fixed. Obviously, it should be noted
> > that the distribution is not intended to be real use, but just to try
> > Chicken to see how useful it is.
> > In that sense, the Windows binary distribution does not have to be
> > the latest release.
>
>
> I am quite opposed to any Windows distribution falling behind any other
> Chicken distribution, whether binary or source.  That would send a clear
> message that Windows support is second fiddle to Unix and not taken
> seriously.
>
> This isn't good reasoning for keeping a Windows binary around.  CMake
> provides excellent build support.  A lot of work was done to make it
> excellent, and we intend to keep it that way.  Offering a crufty binary
> installation instead of an excellent source build makes no sense.  Why
> should a user be exposed to bad Windows support instead of good Windows
> support?  It makes Chicken looks like it has bad Windows support, when
> in fact it has really good support now, if one uses the standard process
> for getting things going.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon Van Every
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users