Re: Python recompile

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

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

>
On 14/03/2025 00:37, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>

 

Instead, the expectation seems to be that the user of the build-machine
has EVERYTHING the developer has, even if poorly justified.

 The expection is that the end-user trying to build the package
has all the necessary prerequisites.   Not "EVERYTHING the developer has".

Think about the word 'necessary'.
Think also about how much arbitrary cruft a developer may accumulate, not just over the lifetime of one project, but longer term, and whether it is fair to inflict /that/ on the poor sod who has to duplicate the exact environment.
Further think about whether the developer, whose skills may lie better within the application area, has in place the most efficient build processes.
Oh hang on, scrap that. No one thinks about such stuff at all. Just throw extra machine resources at the problem and expect everyone else to do the same. Because after all the developer only has to run these processes dozens of times a day for months or years of development, so it is not worth considering.

 

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.
Or maybe, why single file amalagamations like sqlite3.c exist. After all no one (according to you) was complaining about grappling with 100 discrete files.