On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Never happens on Linux, and isn't (forced) to be happening here. >>> >>> Windows is not linux, it has its constraints (and advantages) that >>> force developers to actually do the builds as well. Whether these >>> binaries will be packaged or distributed by them or 3rd party (some >>> CoApp structure for example) is an open question at this stage. >> >> Why can't building be done by a third party? > > Why would we not support 3rd party binaries of our software?
I haven't said you had to support them. I also haven't said first-party builds are forbidden. > No control of what they do (custom patches), different compilers > version with different bugs which have not been caught (or can't) by > our CI/QA processes. Signed binaries using companies signature. etc. Maybe CoApp could provide build infrastructure so packages can be build automatically in a clean and known environment. > That's why PHP does not support 3rd party builds for example, so does > many projects with linux packages. It is also the reasons why all > distributions have their own issues tracker as most of the bugs are > actually not a bug in the upstream version. I don't think CoApp can do > that in the long run on Windows. Who said CoApp won't support first-party builds? Olaf _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
