Don't we ship the flex-generated code in the tarball anyway? If so, why do we ship flex.exe?
On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > I have to agree with the two requests here. Having either a windows tarball > or a windows build tools tarball doesn't seem too burdensom, and could even > be done automatically at make dist time. > > Brian > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org <users-boun...@open-mpi.org> > To: us...@open-mpi.org <us...@open-mpi.org> > Sent: Thu Jan 21 10:05:03 2010 > Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe > > Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 11:52 -0500 schrieb Michael Di Domenico: > > openmpi-1.4.1/contrib/platform/win32/bin/flex.exe > > > > I understand this file might be required for building on windows, > > since I'm not I can just delete the file without issue. > > > > However, for those of us under import restrictions, where binaries are > > not allowed in, this file causes me to open the tarball and delete the > > file (not a big deal, i know, i know). > > > > But, can I put up a vote for a pure source only tree? > > I'm very much in favor of that since we can't ship this binary in > Debian. We'd have to delete it from the tarball and repack it with every > release which is quite cumbersome. If these tools could be shipped in a > separate tarball that would be great! > > Best regards > Manuel > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com
