Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Pete, This is a line from my Compression Tool software. It zips without the .DS_Store files. Item -1 of fld File is the name of a file or folder in the current defaultFolder. put zip -r quote myZipFile quote quote item -1 of fld File quote -x .* *.DS_Store *Icon* into myShell Installer Maker compresses all embedded files with the compress() function. Compressing the resulting installer again hardly saves any space. The compress() function is very efficient. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Get the extIco2Png external for LiveCode here http://qery.us/1w6 On 10 apr 2012, at 17:25, Pete wrote: Thanks guys. I was hoping for a way to automate this and a few other steps involved in getting my app ready for release by using the standaloneSaved message, that's why I was using the revZIPxxx commands. I was also hoping that they would get around the problem I came across with the built in Mac compress function when the archive is unzipped on a Windows machine - some unnecessary files are included in the archive - .dstore if I remember correctly. I found a program named CleanArchiver that gets around that problem but, once again, makes it difficult to automate things using an external program. I'll give tar a try. Pete ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Thanks Mark, I'll take a look. Pete On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Pete, This is a line from my Compression Tool software. It zips without the .DS_Store files. Item -1 of fld File is the name of a file or folder in the current defaultFolder. put zip -r quote myZipFile quote quote item -1 of fld File quote -x .* *.DS_Store *Icon* into myShell Installer Maker compresses all embedded files with the compress() function. Compressing the resulting installer again hardly saves any space. The compress() function is very efficient. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Get the extIco2Png external for LiveCode here http://qery.us/1w6 On 10 apr 2012, at 17:25, Pete wrote: Thanks guys. I was hoping for a way to automate this and a few other steps involved in getting my app ready for release by using the standaloneSaved message, that's why I was using the revZIPxxx commands. I was also hoping that they would get around the problem I came across with the built in Mac compress function when the archive is unzipped on a Windows machine - some unnecessary files are included in the archive - .dstore if I remember correctly. I found a program named CleanArchiver that gets around that problem but, once again, makes it difficult to automate things using an external program. I'll give tar a try. Pete ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode -- Pete Molly's Revenge http://www.mollysrevenge.com ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Kee, This doesn't get rid of the .DS_Store files. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Get the extIco2Png external for LiveCode here http://qery.us/1w6 On 10 apr 2012, at 04:29, Kee Nethery wrote: Or just use the Mac Archive or Compress menu item in the Finder. It works great. Kee ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Hi, Tar is a bad idea because it glues files together and doesn't compress. Tar was invented to allow gzip to compress multiple files. It is easier and faster to use the zip command line tool rather than to use both tar and gzip. Many unix geeks still prefer tar+gzip but I'm not sure why. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Get the extIco2Png external for LiveCode here http://qery.us/1w6 On 10 apr 2012, at 05:48, stephen barncard wrote: tar (from the shell) works even better. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Mark Schonewille wrote: Hi, Tar is a bad idea because it glues files together and doesn't compress. Tar was invented to allow gzip to compress multiple files. It is easier and faster to use the zip command line tool rather than to use both tar and gzip. Many unix geeks still prefer tar+gzip but I'm not sure why. Wha??? tar (Tape ARchiver) has been around since before we even considered compression schemes. It wasn't until the Linux / FreeBSD movement that compression options were added. On most systems still using ATT tar sources, you have to compress an archive after tar creates it and decompress an archive before tar can extract its contents. We prefer tar and a compressor because it allows up to properly bundle up bits of code, regardless of the file types, and share them with others while reduing the overall footprint required on disk and for transfer. The tar app is available in one form or another on every platform out there, so you can pretty much always open another's tarball. In fact, I believe Dennis' original PDP MULTIX 9-track install tapes used a precursor to the modern tar format. Tim ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Hi Tim, Yes, you're right, tar is older. Nonetheless, can you think of any other reason why one would want to use tar, except for glueing files together in preparation of compression? I'm not sure what you mean by property bundle up bits of code. I don't think that tar is available on Windows by default, but that's another story. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Get the extIco2Png external for LiveCode here http://qery.us/1w6 On 11 apr 2012, at 01:14, Tim Jones wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Mark Schonewille wrote: Hi, Tar is a bad idea because it glues files together and doesn't compress. Tar was invented to allow gzip to compress multiple files. It is easier and faster to use the zip command line tool rather than to use both tar and gzip. Many unix geeks still prefer tar+gzip but I'm not sure why. Wha??? tar (Tape ARchiver) has been around since before we even considered compression schemes. It wasn't until the Linux / FreeBSD movement that compression options were added. On most systems still using ATT tar sources, you have to compress an archive after tar creates it and decompress an archive before tar can extract its contents. We prefer tar and a compressor because it allows up to properly bundle up bits of code, regardless of the file types, and share them with others while reduing the overall footprint required on disk and for transfer. The tar app is available in one form or another on every platform out there, so you can pretty much always open another's tarball. In fact, I believe Dennis' original PDP MULTIX 9-track install tapes used a precursor to the modern tar format. Tim ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
I guess my primary concern is that a user can simply download the compressed file and either have his browser autoatically un-compress it or just be able to double-click on it to un-compress it, then have the program be ready to use. I may be misunderstanding but sounds like it might not be that straightforward with tar? Pete On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Hi Tim, Yes, you're right, tar is older. Nonetheless, can you think of any other reason why one would want to use tar, except for glueing files together in preparation of compression? I'm not sure what you mean by property bundle up bits of code. I don't think that tar is available on Windows by default, but that's another story. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Get the extIco2Png external for LiveCode here http://qery.us/1w6 On 11 apr 2012, at 01:14, Tim Jones wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Mark Schonewille wrote: Hi, Tar is a bad idea because it glues files together and doesn't compress. Tar was invented to allow gzip to compress multiple files. It is easier and faster to use the zip command line tool rather than to use both tar and gzip. Many unix geeks still prefer tar+gzip but I'm not sure why. Wha??? tar (Tape ARchiver) has been around since before we even considered compression schemes. It wasn't until the Linux / FreeBSD movement that compression options were added. On most systems still using ATT tar sources, you have to compress an archive after tar creates it and decompress an archive before tar can extract its contents. We prefer tar and a compressor because it allows up to properly bundle up bits of code, regardless of the file types, and share them with others while reduing the overall footprint required on disk and for transfer. The tar app is available in one form or another on every platform out there, so you can pretty much always open another's tarball. In fact, I believe Dennis' original PDP MULTIX 9-track install tapes used a precursor to the modern tar format. Tim ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode -- Pete Molly's Revenge http://www.mollysrevenge.com ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
On Apr 10, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Pete wrote: Hi Warren, It's the un-zipping at the other end that concerns me, not the zip on my machine. Sounds like the ability to handle tar files might require a Windows user to install some software. You might be surprised at just how many Windows users actually already have one of these installed. Far too many developers shortcut the installer process and go this route. That means that a lot of apps floating around in Windows space are already in tar, zip, rar, or other non-standard Windows file format. To access these, the Windows users have already had to install an appropriate tool. Don't be afraid of something just because you're not an expert. We've (app creators) been using these formats to deliver files and data to users for as long as I've been doing this (over 30 years at this point…). If you're not going to be using an installer, then a zip file or tarball are very valid and accepted formats for delivery. Tim ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Pete, I wonder if your revZip issue comes from the fact that a .app file is really a folder in disguise. To pick an app via dialog on OS X, you must say answer file but then immediately you must treat the .app file you picked as a folder containing subfolders and files. Consider this button code: on mouseUp answer file Pick an app to zip if it = empty then exit to top set the defaultFolder to it put the defaultFolder cr the folders end mouseUp When you run this, the defaultFolder is now indeed the selected .app file and it contains a Contents folder which contains all the app parts. So you'll need to drill down into the .app folder and add each file to your zip file. Then when it's restored at installation time, you may have to turn on the .app folder's bundle bit, I'm not really sure. I think someone on the list told how to do this some time ago but I couldn't tell you who or how. There's probably a line command for it. Food for thought. Phil Davis On 4/9/12 5:19 PM, Pete wrote: Been putting together a litte script to get all my files ready for a release and used the revZIPxxx commands to make a zip file of the LC standalone program - this all on a Mac. The resulting zip file is only 4kb in size, obvioulsy not correct. The code is pretty straightfroward: revZipOpenArchive myZipFile,write *if* the result is not empty *then* *answer* the result *answer* file Zip file revZipAddItemWithFile myZipFile,myApp.app,it *if* the result is not empty *then* *answer* the result revZipCloseArchive myZipFile Zipping the same file with the built-in OS X compress function works fine and so does the CleanARchiver utitlity. ANy ideas? -- Phil Davis PDS Labs Professional Software Development http://pdslabs.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Hi Pete, Understood - what I saw in the thread was others offering up tar options that can easily be executed in a shell in much the same manner as the revZip stuff. But, as Phil mentions concerning folders with the revZip functions, tar will automatically pickup the folder structures and compress the resulting output as a single file. My responses were simply aimed at reassuring you that a tar file (gzipped or otherwise) was a valid and successful way to achieve what you were looking for and that recipients wouldn't have an issue receiving such a package. Tim On Apr 10, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Pete wrote: Hi Tim, The origin of this thread was me trying to automate the packaging of the app at my end by writing a script to handle the standaloneSaved message. It used the revZIPxxx commands which, unfortunately, don't seem to work very well, so other scripted solutions were offered, including tar and zip. I can definitely continue to create the compressed files manually in a format that will work just fine for Mac and WIndows (and hopefully Linux). I'm thinking about a proper installer but, other than moving the application to it's appropriate folder for the platform, there's nothing else to do so it just seems like overkill. Pete On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Tim Jones tolis...@me.com wrote: On Apr 10, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Pete wrote: Hi Warren, It's the un-zipping at the other end that concerns me, not the zip on my machine. Sounds like the ability to handle tar files might require a Windows user to install some software. You might be surprised at just how many Windows users actually already have one of these installed. Far too many developers shortcut the installer process and go this route. That means that a lot of apps floating around in Windows space are already in tar, zip, rar, or other non-standard Windows file format. To access these, the Windows users have already had to install an appropriate tool. Don't be afraid of something just because you're not an expert. We've (app creators) been using these formats to deliver files and data to users for as long as I've been doing this (over 30 years at this point…). If you're not going to be using an installer, then a zip file or tarball are very valid and accepted formats for delivery. Tim ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode -- Pete Molly's Revenge http://www.mollysrevenge.com ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Been putting together a litte script to get all my files ready for a release and used the revZIPxxx commands to make a zip file of the LC standalone program - this all on a Mac. The resulting zip file is only 4kb in size, obvioulsy not correct. The code is pretty straightfroward: revZipOpenArchive myZipFile,write *if* the result is not empty *then* *answer* the result *answer* file Zip file revZipAddItemWithFile myZipFile,myApp.app,it *if* the result is not empty *then* *answer* the result revZipCloseArchive myZipFile Zipping the same file with the built-in OS X compress function works fine and so does the CleanARchiver utitlity. ANy ideas? -- Pete Molly's Revenge http://www.mollysrevenge.com ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Pete- Monday, April 9, 2012, 5:19:49 PM, you wrote: Zipping the same file with the built-in OS X compress function works fine and so does the CleanARchiver utitlity. ANy ideas? Don't bother with the revzip things. They've never worked very well. You'll get better results and more features (folders and such) if you shell out to zip or ditto. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
Or just use the Mac Archive or Compress menu item in the Finder. It works great. Kee ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Zipping Up an LC standalone program
tar (from the shell) works even better. On 9 April 2012 19:29, Kee Nethery k...@kagi.com wrote: Or just use the Mac Archive or Compress menu item in the Finder. It works great. Kee ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode -- Stephen Barncard San Francisco Ca. USA more about sqb http://www.google.com/profiles/sbarncar ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
