I see the release of the PAR (Perl ARchive) format, as a parallel to
the JAR format to handle exactly this situation. According to the two
sentence blurb I saw before heading home this evening, a simple module
inclusion allows the PAR files to be used as your include path.
Tremendous savings
At 7:23 AM -0500 11/4/02, Sherm Pendley wrote:
On the other hand, CB apps would be significantly larger as a
result. I haven't compiled a 5.8.0 libperl.a, but libperl.dylib for
5.8.0 weighs in at about 1.1MB - and that's before including any
modules. Also, the download for developers would be
I remember using MacPerl and Runtime Builder (?) under pre-Mac OS X, and
it seemed to work well. It bundled up MacPerl and any needed modules
into a nice little distributable application.
I'm assuming something similar would be done, where only the needed
modules would be included?
Pete
On 11/4/02 7:23 AM, Sherm Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm close to the 0.3 release, and I've been thinking about the question
of packaging.
[...]
I understand that time constraints will limit what you can do, but I'd like
to outline what I think the best solution would be.
It would be
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 07:23 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
I'm close to the 0.3 release, and I've been thinking about the
question of packaging.
At the risk of starting a flamewar, I think Microsoft got it right with
VB. The CamelBones package builder should allow you to build lite (use
I've only had time to glimpse at CamelBones and I've almost no experience
with project builder, but
I know that Sherm is getting very close to providing exactly what I want and
soon I'll be riding his coattails.
What I want is a way to deliver stand alone apps. If that means including a
perl
SPVirtually everyone I've heard from wants to distribute standalone,
SPdrag-n-drop app bundles.
I want a Mac-like installation for end users. Either an installer
or a drag-n-drop app bundle would serve, from this perspective.
I also want to provide a way to let folks uninstall my app. Given
On 11/4/02 6:23 AM, Sherm Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what do you think?
sherm--
Personally, I think a full distribution of Perl built-in is perfect.
In my environment we use Perl (Classic MacPerl actually) to distribute
various utilities used for our build/version control process.
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 05:37 PM, Robert Mah wrote:
On 11/4/02 7:23 AM, Sherm Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm close to the 0.3 release, and I've been thinking about the question
of packaging.
[...]
It would be wonderful if you could package multiple builds of app
specific
and
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 05:25 PM, Alex Harper wrote:
Without going into too much detail, this means we are already used to
dealing with packaging our own Perl modules into our (large)
distribution.
Well, whatever I wind up with will almost certainly be simpler than
packing modules in
10 matches
Mail list logo
