Silly link question: python22_d.dll

[Tim Peters]

[Courageous]
> ...
> Furthermore, why the heck doesn't the binary release include
> python22_d.dll???

_d files proved to be far more trouble than they were worth when PythonLabs
used to distribute them.  Newbies in massive numbers kept getting confused
by them, while self-identified <wink> experts disagreed about which _d files
were needed and where they should be installed.  The audience for them is
tiny and fractious.

BTW, they were never included in the binary distro, because they're useless
bytes to the vast bulk of Python's Windows users -- the installer download
is already bigger than I'd like.

The offer I made when I stopped distributing them still stands:  if the
handful of people who want this stuff get together and write a PEP, agreeing
on exactly which _d files are needed (e.g., your claim that python22_d.dll
is enough probably won't stand:  there are a dozen other Release-build DLLs
shipped with Python too), where to put them, how to distribute them without
confusing newbies, and documenting the intended use cases clearly enough so
that I don't have to spend most of my life replying to confused email, I'll
be happy to resume shipping _d files pulled from the Windows builds on my
box.

In the meantime, you hit on the intended solution, which only Windows
developers have the chutzpah to complain about (the idea that a Unixish
developer would make a similar complaint used to be <wink> unthinkable):

> I know how to build Python from source, and that's how I do
> it now, but that's a pain sometimes.