sources vs. binaries

[John Nash]

In article <1991Dec18.064507.11565 at nic.funet.fi>, harper at nic.funet.fi (Rob Harper) writes:
>In <1991Dec18.014405.4281 at redpoll.neoucom.edu> red at redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]

>*>I suggest that a new newsgroup for these non-readable postings be
>*>created with the name of bionet.software.binaries in the tradition of
>*>comp.binaries.*.  Then I wouldn't have to subscribe to it.  :-)
>
>	I would suggest that the bionet.software.sources be opened up
>	so as to allow the posting of uuencode binaries even if the
>	source is not included. Let me just say that COMAP.ZIP was
>	made available to the public in the newsgroup before it could
>	even be had from any of the molbio ftp sites.

Rob,  do sources have to be included before things can be posted here? 
I wasn't aware of this, if it is so...




John Nash.   Nash at biologysx.lan.nrc.ca (preferred) or num208jn at mbds.nrc.ca
Institute for Biological Sciences, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa,  Canada.	
==>  Disclaimer:  All opinions are mine, not NRC's!  <==