<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I think ultimately there should be a distinction between sources and binaries that there isn’t right now. It’s <i class="">convenient</i> to be able to check out and immediately build without also installing a binary distribution, but I really don’t think it should be <i class="">required</i>.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I find it quite convenient with SBCL that its binary distribution can easily be packaged in a standard Unix fashion for installation into /usr/local or /opt, and that I can use that binary distribution to build SBCL from sources from the command line. That’s one reason I filed #7.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sure, to build CCL 1.11 and earlier maybe you have to do the “tar --strip-components 1” stuff to install a binary into to the sources, but maybe for 1.12 and later (or 1.13 and later) you just need a binary distribution of CCL 1.12 in your PATH.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Then the binary distribution can be shipped via “normal” binary distribution channels, e.g. GitHub Releases, files on the CCL web site, whatever, and not clutter any repositories.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> -- Chris</div><div class=""> -- who would also suggest breaking out the ObjC and Cocoa bridges into a separate repo</div><div class=""> -- and also the IDE</div><div class=""> -- and the examples maybe</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>