Remove the ninja build-from-source

[sbc100]

Now that we have ninja binaries available for install (See #1105), I don't think we need to be able to build it from source anymore.

We can treat ninja more like node and/or python and just depend on the binary version of it.

Also, add missing arm64 binaries for ninja for windows and linux

[dschuff]

If @juj wants the build-from-source for the compilers to allow code signing and such, and if we are going to start depending on Ninja for building libraries, then he might want to keep the ninja build-from-source for the same reasons.

[sbc100]

If @juj wants the build-from-source for the compilers to allow code signing and such, and if we are going to start depending on Ninja for building libraries, then he might want to keep the ninja build-from-source for the same reasons.

I doubt the official ninja binaries are are problem though, right?

Also, even in a Ninja build its still Visual Studio (the official MS binaries) that are doing all the compiling and linking. The version of ninja.exe used to invoke the tools I don't think plays any role in the resulting signature/binary right?

[dschuff]

I doubt the official ninja binaries are are problem though, right?

🤷 Dunno. Are they signed?

Also, even in a Ninja build its still Visual Studio (the official MS binaries) that are doing all the compiling and linking. The version of ninja.exe used to invoke the tools I don't think plays any role in the resulting signature/binary right?

Yeah, mostly I think the issue is that they don't want to ship any binaries to run on the users' machine that aren't signed, since they may be blocked by the OS. So if they are packaging all possible target libraries ahead of time, then it's not an issue. But if some libraries get built on demand, the ninja binary would need to be signed by someone.