Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vqk0ro$nebg$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: bart <bc@freeuk.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Python recompile Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:16:56 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: <vqk0ro$nebg$1@dont-email.me> References: <vq1qas$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$1@dont-email.me> <vqjkj0$l82b$1@dont-email.me> <20250309114336.00006b0a@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 13:16:56 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="69b69def121069d466e382fb0133eb9e"; logging-data="768368"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WtqIJeTNDQrtoy3Xk2Tfz" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ikmQMoCKMNQ4V++4zqiraJ6SrUg= In-Reply-To: <20250309114336.00006b0a@yahoo.com> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 3927 On 09/03/2025 09:43, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:47:28 -0000 (UTC) > Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > > Pay attention that all this slow, complicated 'configure' business > didn't originate on Windows. It was invented in order to cover variety > of Unixen. Which (variety) no longer exists, but religious 'free > software' people like to pretend that it is still relevant and continue > to use configure. It's more likely that they don't even think about it. It's just the way it's always been done, and they don't question it. They only get vocal when it is necessary to build on a non-Unix environment and complain that it is rubbish because all that baggage is missing. Then their program written in the 'portable' C language, even when it isn't full of POSIX header files, is not quite so portable because of external factors.