docu update

[Mike Hearn]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:37:54 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> d) They need something that isn't part of the standard packages (for
>    instance BiDi support).

Is there a reason that can't be dlopened too? relaytool makes it much less
hassle to write dlopened code.
 
> e) They want to report a crash and need debug symbols to get a valid
>    backtrace.

Red Hat have developed a neat solution for this, the latest binutils can
split debug symbols into a separate set of files so you can just install
debuginfo packages and gdb will automatically use them.

> f) They want to try a patch that someone sent them.

How often does that occur, really? I bet about 1% of our users actually do
this. 

> I don't see why that should be a goal at all. You guys need to get rid
> of the mindset that building from source is some 1337 thing that mere
> mortals are not supposed to do.

I wouldn't say not supposed to do, but rather that they shouldn't *have*
to do it. 

>  There are plenty of legitimate reasons
> for users to build from source, and we need to make sure it works for
> them. That's why for instance the configure script is checked into CVS;
> it is of course heresy to put generated files in CVS, but it lets users
> build without having to fight the autoconf tools. It's for the same
> reason that we have wineinstall. Of course I'm all for improving the
> binary packages, but it doesn't avoid the need to also support source
> builds.

Yes, I agree that both routes should be as easy as possible :) I just
think we should start telling users who are building from source for no
real reason to use binaries instead.

thanks -mike