[Ltib] why is BSP ISO ltib/ directory larger than savannah ltib/?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  in my ongoing quest to annoy people with picky questions, i'm  
curious as to why the top-level ltib/ directory that comes with the  
BSP iso image has more contents than the stock ltib/ tarball one can  
download from savannah.

  for instance, compare the bin/ directories.  there are a number of  
additional executables in the BSP iso directory than there are in the  
savannah one -- utilities such as checkmd5, spit_profile and others.

  i can read here:

http://www.bitshrine.org/autodocs/LtibFaq.html

that:

"LTIB is available either as iso images from Freescale or in CVS  
format from savannah

"The iso images have the advantage that they are self-contained, the  
packages for the target are pre-built and they also have more BSP  
specific documentation."

  that makes some sense, except that some of the utilities seem to be  
clearly BSP-independent, so i'm just curious as to why they're not in  
the stock savannah tarball download but are in the BSP image.

rday

p.s.  by the way, the ltib-6.2.2-sv.tar.gz tarball you can get from  
savannah still has the CVS directories in it, which is kind of  
non-standard.