MRAB wrote: > On 2019-01-09 14:56, songbird wrote: >> Chris Angelico wrote: >> ... >>> You want it to work with minimal effort? Then forget about py2exe and >>> just distribute your .py files. WAY easier. >> >> which then forces the work onto every other >> person who might install it, if they are on a >> different architecture or system it even gets >> worse if you add in that they may need to figure >> out how to get a C compiler installed and >> available (if a bdist/wheel isn't available >> because the developer couldn't figure out how >> to generate one). >> >> for a novice user who just wants to get >> something done this isn't a very good solution. >> >> a build farm for common architectures would >> help a lot of developers avoid all this thrashing. >> > .py files work on any platform that supports Python: Windows, Linux, > MacOs, ...
.py isn't the point as somehow the modules i am using compile C code during the install. i'd be happier if they didn't, but i don't have a way to easily generate those files myself that i know of. > How many platforms support .exe files that were compiled for Windows? depends upon the versions... i have some pretty ancient Windows/DOS programs that work fine under dosbox in my Debian Linux testing setup. i haven't checked them out lately though to see if they're still runnable (good chance they're ok). been busy with other things and besides i finally moved the ancient spreadsheets from Multiplan to Libreoffice. songbird -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
