Re: emacs-20101122 windows binaries

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:10:59 +0100
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:57:39 +0100
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >> >> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>> >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:56:11 +0100
>> >> >> Cc: sean.sieger@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Because it's pointless.  If we want to give users release binaries
>> >> >> >> > with debug info, we should just ship such a binary, period.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Please explain why you think that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I just did, above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In what way is "pointless" an explanation?
>> >> >
>> >> > I meant the second sentence.
>> >>
>> >> Can you then explain if you think there is any reason not to ship the
>> >> release binaries with debug info?
>> >
>> > I said it is slightly better, that's all.  The reason is disk space,
>> > of course: 30MB is a lot for a binary.
>>
>> Why do you then think it is pointless to ship both binaries with debug
>> info and without it?
>
> It should be clear: it's even more disk space waste.

Why do you think that giving the users the choice to download either
binaries with debug info or without it is "even more disk space
waste"?