GUI source or binary release?

[Selur]

Since I'm working on my own little gui I was wondering what users prefer under linux.
a. a binary release of the gui
b. a source release

Since I'm using Qt as development framework b. would require from the user to:
0. qt runtime
1. install qt-dev package (+gcc)
2. download source
3. run qmake projectfile
4. run make
a. would just require the qt runtime

Cu Selur

[ronnylov]

Why not both? Binary releasy for the most common distributions and source release for those who want to install manually or just examine or modify the source code.

[nm]

Since I'm working on my own little gui I was wondering what users prefer under linux.
a. a binary release of the gui
b. a source release
I agree with ronnylov, better have both. I would prefer source, especially if I can't run the binary for some reason, but binaries are nice if the source is also available.

Since I'm using Qt as development framework a. would require from the user to:
0. qt runtime
1. install qt-dev package (+gcc)
2. download source
3. run qmake projectfile
4. run make
b. would just require the qt runtime
I guess a. and b. should be switched here :)

[Selur]

That's not the question. ;) Since my tool is alpha-state I don't want to package the windows binary, the linux binary and the linux source code for each 'alpha-release' so I'm wondering what the majority prefers.
(Personally I prefer binary releases for user interfaces and source releases for more complex tools.) Once I find the time&fun to setup a homepage&co for the project and automate the release procedure this will probably change but atm it's more a question which potential users would prefer. :)

I guess a. and b. should be switched here
fixed it :)

Cu Selur

[fbgd]

If it has to be one or the other I think it would be best to release the source.

[Henrikx]

Both. Source, optional binary.

About Dependencies...
Everyone knows how to compile and update Mplayer/mencoder ffmpeg, x264 ?

[Sharktooth]

.tgz (sources), .rpm and .deb packages should be enough.

[SledgeHammer_999]

Since I'm working on my own little gui I was wondering what users prefer under linux.
a. a binary release of the gui
b. a source release

Since I'm using Qt as development framework b. would require from the user to:
0. qt runtime
1. install qt-dev package (+gcc)
2. download source
3. run qmake projectfile
4. run make
a. would just require the qt runtime

Cu Selur

Definetely source because Qt's license says so (unless you pay for a different license).

Personally I prefer both... I rarely build sources, but I like to have them available :p

[Selur]

unless you pay for a different license
Still thinking about it, but last time I checked a commercial license was around 2k$ per OS, which is a no-go for a hobby project. ;)

[quote]Personally I prefer both... I rarely build sources, but I like to have them available[/qoute]
Availability wouldn't be the problem, anybody who wants the sources could get them, as long as he wouldn't use them in a commercial environment. :)