How to install Python package from source on Windows

[bartc]

On 17/05/2017 21:39, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:32 AM, bartc <bc at freeuk.com> wrote:

>> It is impossible that all this is needed just to figure out what source
>> files need to be compiled. (If it generated CPython sources fractal-style,
>> then I might be impressed, but doesn't.)
>
> I love how absolutely certain you are that this is *impossible*. Ahh,
> that naivety again. Though in this case, you do happen to be correct:
> it's doing more than merely figuring out which files to compile. It's
> figuring out what libraries are available, what features are available
> in those libraries, how the compiler produces object files, whether
> the build environment is sane, and in some cases, enumerating all
> available compilers so you can pick and choose. Imagine if your
> compiler could detect whether nasm, tasm, masm, or gas is installed,
> and emit appropriate assembly code for any of them. That's what you
> need a configure script for.

Please tell me you don't seriously think it takes 18,000 lines of script 
just to do that.

And if you don't, what are the other 17,000 lines doing, or don't you care?

(Actually I've seen a 20,000-line configure just trying to compile the 
GMP library.)

>> (BTW I've gone down the route of installing MSYS etc many times, something
>> always went wrong. Why is it that people can't appreciate that complicated
>> thing are more likely to go wrong?)
>
> Why would bash not exist? Or do you mean that it exists, but isn't installed?

Because it (and all the utilities the script intends to use) exist on a 
different OS?

>> I've put some comments here: https://pastebin.XXX/hSCjNsA2 as it's getting
>> way off-topic.
>
> Not interested in clicking on a pastebin with all its ads.

OK, 30 minutes of effort down the drain. (I've deleted the link now.)

If you don't want to believe that my compilers are capable of competing 
with gcc, then don't. It doesn't change the facts.

gcc can do astonishing things with small, tight, benchmarks or when 
directed at specific bottlenecks. But its optimisations have less 
dramatic effects on some real applications such as mine.

(And take another look at the figures I posted yesterday comparing gcc 
with Tiny C, with an extra line:

  Tiny C     6.7 seconds
  gcc -O3    3.6 seconds
  My comp:   1.2 seconds with ASM help

Yes, that last figure is three times the speed of gcc. If you won't 
believe 30% slower, then I doubt you will 200% faster! Yes, one module 
is ASM, but the others are HLL, and no C compiler is involved.)

-- 
bartc