Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 43 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 94:18:12 |
Calls: | 290 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 904 |
Messages: | 76,378 |
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 00:44:10 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 28.12.2024 00:22, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
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?
On Linux, there is no “development environment” versus “user environment”.
The same packaging tools work with both source code and built binaries.
You think it's normal that on a Linux installation where, say, no 'cc'
(as prominent example of a development tool) is installed the package
manager would first install ALL the necessary compilers and scripting languages just to create a binary (as opposed to just installing the
binary)?
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:40:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
You think it's normal that on a Linux installation where, say, no 'cc'
(as prominent example of a development tool) is installed the package
manager would first install ALL the necessary compilers and scripting
languages just to create a binary (as opposed to just installing the
binary)?
The discussion has to do with creating your own version of the binary,
rather than using the repo-provided version.
This codebase is absolutely massive! I am beginning to lose patience.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:40:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
You think it's normal that on a Linux installation where, say, no 'cc'
(as prominent example of a development tool) is installed the package
manager would first install ALL the necessary compilers and scripting
languages just to create a binary (as opposed to just installing the
binary)?
The discussion has to do with creating your own version of the binary,
rather than using the repo-provided version.
Right.
Anyway, to be honest, I never realized how bloated Thunderbird is.
The source RPM thunderbird-128.5.2-1.fc41.src.rpm is 690MB and
the main source directory unpacked is:
~/tmp/tb/thunderbird-128.5.2 $ du -sh
4.2G .
Building TB with the help of a pre-made spec file on Fedora is
probably very much easier than doing 'git clone' and trying to
build it from there. Using 'dnf', it was just one command to
download all the dependencies. I suppose the size of the
dependency packages was 260MB in total. It would be a nightmare
having to download them manually and then building them.
Packages are just so handy.
Fedora and Red Hat have already done the hard work so it
is wise to use their source RPM as a basis for your own
modifications when you are on Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise
Linux.
My single CPU Thunderbird build has now lasted for over two
and half hours and I have no clue when it will be ready.
This codebase is absolutely massive! I am beginning to
lose patience.
br,
KK
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:40:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
You think it's normal that on a Linux installation where, say, no 'cc'
(as prominent example of a development tool) is installed the package
manager would first install ALL the necessary compilers and scripting
languages just to create a binary (as opposed to just installing the
binary)?
The discussion has to do with creating your own version of the binary,
rather than using the repo-provided version.
Right.
Anyway, to be honest, I never realized how bloated Thunderbird is.
The source RPM thunderbird-128.5.2-1.fc41.src.rpm is 690MB and
the main source directory unpacked is:
~/tmp/tb/thunderbird-128.5.2 $ du -sh
4.2G .
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 23:32:37 -0000 (UTC)
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) gabbled:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:40:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
You think it's normal that on a Linux installation where, say, no 'cc' >>>> (as prominent example of a development tool) is installed the package
manager would first install ALL the necessary compilers and scripting
languages just to create a binary (as opposed to just installing the
binary)?
The discussion has to do with creating your own version of the binary,
rather than using the repo-provided version.
Right.
Anyway, to be honest, I never realized how bloated Thunderbird is.
The source RPM thunderbird-128.5.2-1.fc41.src.rpm is 690MB and
the main source directory unpacked is:
~/tmp/tb/thunderbird-128.5.2 $ du -sh
4.2G .
Welcome to Lego brick style programming where the main application devs are incompetant halfwits unable to implement even simple things themselves beyond designing (if that applies to Thunderbird) a GUI so have to import 101 libraries
to do everything for them.
I've written my own newsreader system and while admittedly its command line only it requires only one 3rd party library which is OpenSSL.
Is the whole thing obscene ? Yes. You won't find too many
software creations, this distorted. Still, people are using it.
Most people are not aware what is under the hood. It's
a herd of elephants :-)
On Sun, 12/29/2024 4:54 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
[...]
I've written my own newsreader system and while admittedly its command line >> only it requires only one 3rd party library which is OpenSSL.
[ snip explanations of some TB internals ]
Is the whole thing obscene ? Yes. You won't find too many
software creations, this distorted. Still, people are using it.
Most people are not aware what is under the hood. It's
a herd of elephants :-)
In article <vkrfue$vl1b$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
...
Is the whole thing obscene ? Yes. You won't find too many
software creations, this distorted. Still, people are using it.
Most people are not aware what is under the hood. It's
a herd of elephants :-)
Just out curiosity, does all of this apply to the Windows version as well?
I know this thread is mostly about the Linux version, and although I
actually don't use TB at all, I know someone who uses the Windows version.
On Sun, 12/29/2024 4:54 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
[...]
I've written my own newsreader system and while admittedly its command line >>> only it requires only one 3rd party library which is OpenSSL.
That's a fine property. - Too bad one has to write one's own piece
of software to get a more sensibly defined product.
In article <vkrfue$vl1b$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
...
Is the whole thing obscene ? Yes. You won't find too many
software creations, this distorted. Still, people are using it.
Most people are not aware what is under the hood. It's
a herd of elephants :-)
Just out curiosity, does all of this apply to the Windows version as well?
I know this thread is mostly about the Linux version, and although I
actually don't use TB at all, I know someone who uses the Windows version.
On Debian-derived platforms, that’s what apt-get build-dep is for.
On 28.12.2024 00:22, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
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?