Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Python recompile
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:04:41 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <874izvjs4m.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <vqefn1$3flpt$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqeu5c$3imil$1@dont-email.me> <vqeun4$3iqbq$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqfcbe$3lkkc$1@dont-email.me>
	<871pv861ht.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<20250308192940.00001351@yahoo.com> <vqi1ge$8jg8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqmgjv$3a2il$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vqn4dn$1eb9s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqo3ss$3hkas$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vqph2e$203bs$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqvtop$cpvn$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vr1nkh$1miii$1@dont-email.me>
	<G8_AP.37556$D_V4.24121@fx39.iad> <vr1uk1$1sb5s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 21:04:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bbf3b2da6e551caad2cd296cab2812d3";
	logging-data="2075289"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IfrjF+EmFsdqSEKD337DC"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bl8AA6nAEPEJLlyhIDE+lCqBWj0=
	sha1:C5aLnojjgPM1xTOaZqNxfpdPNb0=
Bytes: 3606

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 14/03/2025 18:00, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
>>> What I'm suggesting goes in the middle. A minimal, streamlined set of
>>> sources, possibly amalgamated (which helps if the user wants to
>>> incorporate this product into their own), with a minimal set of
>>> dependencies.
>> Why on earth would a developer do this just to make -your- life
>> easier?   Nobody else is complaining endlessly about it.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to answer the question I posed about why bother
> with distributing software as binaries if building from source is so
> effortless.

Nobody said it was "effortless".  You made that up.

I can install a binary software package on my computer without
needing a compiler, and it typically takes a few seconds because
someone else has done the work of building it.  I happen to have
a compiler, but not everyone does.  If I have the sources, I can
probably install a newer version than my OS makes available, and
perhaps I can choose some configuration options.  And yes, it's a
bit more effort.

> Or maybe, why single file amalagamations like sqlite3.c
> exist. After all no one (according to you) was complaining about
> grappling with 100 discrete files.

Think about why single file amalgamations like sqlite3.c are so
rare.  There isn't much demand for them.  I think that SQLite3 is
designed with portability in mind far more than most software is.
Presumably its developers expend considerable effort to keep it
that way, effort that developers of other software probably don't
feel the need to expend.

For most software packages, building them from source is reasonably
easy.  I don't care how big that the "configure" script is, because
99.9% of the time I don't even look at it.  It takes some time to
run, and sure, that could probably be streamlined, but I typically go
off and do other things while it's running.  I'm aware that it's not
so easy in your environment.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */