Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vqjkj0$l82b$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Python recompile
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:47:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <vqjkj0$l82b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <vq3oag$18iv6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq4hf2$1brf7$1@dont-email.me> <vq4l3d$1ck9e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq4m0u$1ctpn$1@dont-email.me> <vq4n05$1d5dv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq4om7$1dbo2$2@dont-email.me> <vq6dqh$1pskk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq6f8p$1pmnk$1@dont-email.me> <vq6gqc$1qcp8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq6ips$1pmnk$2@dont-email.me> <vq6j5h$1qosf$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250304092827.708@kylheku.com> <vq7g1p$1vmg5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq94dt$2boso$1@dont-email.me> <vqcsk7$23bfo$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqefn1$3flpt$1@dont-email.me> <vqeu5c$3imil$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqeun4$3iqbq$1@dont-email.me> <vqfcbe$3lkkc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqh569$3e9d$1@dont-email.me> <vqhj2e$5u26$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhp18$75es$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhs8o$7o8n$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 09:47:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="195cb8e46a171f32250b5da62fb22c91";
	logging-data="696395"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MM+Zh70OgGm+l5dPhGz2I"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SpOhH/LdW+kfPS7etvVEkELLovU=
Bytes: 2698

On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:46:14 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>On 08/03/2025 15:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:09:17 +0000
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled:
>>> My idea is similar to supplying binaries, but replacing each binary 
>>> file with one C source file. This now needs a C compiler to turn into 
>>> a binary, but nothing else. No configure, no makefiles, virtually no 
>>> special options, no special compiler needed and no special version.
>> 
>> So instead of just typing "make" the user has to know how to invoke the
>> compiler, possibly with certain switches set. Not sure how thats any 
>> better.
>
>I've just typed 'make' in a Windows prompt. Nothing happens ('command 
>not recognised'). That's a good start!

I'm not particularly interested in windows development. Microsoft seems to
have made it as complicated as possibly with its ridiculous overcomplicated
project files. From a unix POV all I want to do if I'm building a package
from source is to type "make" after selecting the correct makefile.

>So according to you, this should be a piece of piss. OK, I'll try it:

I'm not really interested in your straw men.