Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 28.12.2024 00:22, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:

[...]

 
No need to be skeptical, we live in modern ages
where things have been made quite convenient for us.

 
LOL. :-)

My comment above was a reference to the bad old
days when you had to manually download tar.gz packages
and compile them to satisfy dependencies. Now the
builds are super easy with the help of package management.

Compiling Thunderbird should be very easy indeed
when we use Linux distro's package management.

 
You expect _users_ of tools to use a _development_
environment to fix *inherent* shortcomings of a tool?
(Shortcomings that should not be there in the first
place!)

Why would you think so? This is just one way to
solve the problem. I would never ever use TB
for anything. I have used a basic newsreader called
tin for over 30 years now. It works fine as I have
no need for any fancy features.


Unfortunately I could not complete my experiment.
The build process jammed my Lenovo Thinkpad so bad
that it was completely stuck, probably because
of build parallelism and memory hogging.

$ grep ^proc /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
processor       : 1
processor       : 2
processor       : 3
processor       : 4
processor       : 5
processor       : 6
processor       : 7
processor       : 8
processor       : 9
processor       : 10
processor       : 11

$ grep ^vendor /proc/cpuinfo |head -1
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD

I got 16GM of RAM. Maybe the build parameters in the
spec file are too aggressive for this modest laptop,
but I did not find any "make -j" invocation.

Now I have to sleep and maybe try it again tomorrow.

br,
KK