xboard-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XBoard-devel] installer


From: Eric Mullins
Subject: Re: [XBoard-devel] installer
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:34:41 -0600
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

Tim Mann wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:43:32 -0700, Arun Persaud <address@hidden> wrote:
an issue came up with the installer. The problem is that we include
timeseal which is a closed source program and so we can't host the
installer on gnu.org. It's also against GNU policy to link to such an
installer on a different site... There doesn't seem to be a good way
around this AFAIK, but perhaps we should just host a bare winboard.exe
on gnu.org

Let's not host binaries at all on gnu.org, only sources.  Does anyone
really want a bare winboard.exe binary?


Count me among those who just want the winboard binary. Each project has its moments of frantic development, and right now, the only one I use for chess is xboard/winboard. So regarding winboard, all I care about is the binary itself. It's trival for me to generate one since I work out of the git tree-- I just pull, and run make-- takes only a few seconds. For regular users who have mostly static support programs but need the latest winboard, they have no choice but to wait for the binary to appear somewhere.

Winboard isn't a good candidate for a sources only release-- there's no configure script, and there are several non-configure related items in config.h. Something to be addressed to be sure, but true for the moment. The same winboard.exe runs on pretty much every conceivable hardware/software configuration running Windows 95 or later, so a binary release makes sense.

This is in sharp contrast to Xboard which works well as a source release.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]