Re: Python recompile

On 11/03/2025 15:06, David Brown wrote:

On 11/03/2025 15:24, bart wrote:

>
To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C compiler. I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL because the developers insist on forcing their Linux dependencies down my throat.
>
>
Developers can do what they like. But they shouldn't inflict their choices on other people, especially those using other OSes.
>

 I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread.  But I am curious here - who do you think is /forcing/ you to compile their code?

OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I can can use on Windows. If that's not possible then there is no choice (other than not to use them at all, which is what I do).

  Why do you think it is appropriate for /you/ to demand that people writing open source projects (often as voluntary work) should go out of their way to make /your/ life easier?

It would make everyone's life easier. Especially those who struggle to build that stuff on Windows.
Windows is getting an unfairly bad reputation for building applications; why do you think that is? It's almost like the people on Linux deliberately keep their build systems Linux-centric just to maintain that myth!

 Why are you trying to inflict /your/ choices on them?

What choices are those? To have to supply, with a multi-MB source download, a text file listing the files I have to submit to the compiler?
Would it really be that onerous? Such a file would also work on Linux and save everyone a lot of time.
Open source developers presumably want people to use their programs, even those working on Windows. And I mentioned elsewhere that 70% of desktop systems and laptops use Windows. So why alienate those people?

 It is very strange to me that you feel open source developers should bow to your preferences and famously restricted build requirements.

Requiring a 35,000 configure script is a ******* joke even on Linux. The mystery is that no one seems to care. Maybe everyone is so inured to this stuff now that they think it's a routine necessity.
It's only with the POV from a different environment that you see what a load of rubbish it really is.
People STILL don't get that many just want to do a one-off build of some software to use, not tinker with the source code. And for that, the source bundle can be vastly simplified.
Do even open source developers not take pride in their work? They go to the trouble of creating a system that can turn a sprawling set of files into a small number of binaries.
But applying the same approach to producing a compact set of source files for a streamlined build is beyond them?

If someone wants to write software that only works on Windows, that's their choice.  If I want to use it on Linux, I may have to re-write parts of it, or use Wine, or Mono, or perhaps be unable to use it at all.  That's fair enough.  The same applies if I - or anyone else - want to use software written for Linux on Windows.  It doesn't matter if making the code cross-platform or independent of a particular library, header or tool would have been a big job or a small job.  I have no right to complain that an open source project is hard for me to build on my chosen system - and neither do you.

It could be hard to build on Linux too. Certainly it can waste a considerable amount of resources.
And yes, you certainly can give feedback even to open source developers.
Long ago I complained about Seed7 being hard to build from source on Windows, and now a prebuilt binary is available.
If my stuff was open source intended to be built on a user's machine, I could give priority to making that as simple and effortless as possible. I would listen to feedback.
(My work is not closed source but I don't encourage users now. I'm not well enough to provide support.)