Re: Python recompile

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 14/03/2025 22:15, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 14/03/2025 20:04, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 14/03/2025 18:00, Scott Lurndal wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

[...]

What I'm suggesting goes in the middle. A minimal, streamlined set of
sources, possibly amalgamated (which helps if the user wants to
incorporate this product into their own), with a minimal set of
dependencies.

Why on earth would a developer do this just to make -your- life
easier?   Nobody else is complaining endlessly about it.

>
Perhaps you'd like to answer the question I posed about why bother
with distributing software as binaries if building from source is so
effortless.

Nobody said it was "effortless".  You made that up.

No response to that?
You misrepresent what others have said, and don't reply when it's
pointed out.
If you can cite someone here actually saying that building from
source
is "effortless", I'll retract this statement.

>
Every single post arguing against me implies that it is effortless:
that is, all you have to do is type 'make'.

Wrong.

Who said it was "effortless"?  Cite the post.

Who said that "all you have to do is type 'make'"?  Cite the
post.  There are *some* software packages that can be built on
supported platforms by just typing "make", but in my experience
that's not very common.  How many times have we discussed the
"configure;make;make install" pattern?

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */