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.