Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 2:36 PM Johan Vromans wrote: > But on Windows it matters whether the program is built with --gui or not. > If I build with --gui invoking the command line version will make all > terminal output disappear. If built without --gui the GUI invokation will > show a nasty

Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi, I have an application that comes in two forms: as a command line tool, and as a GUI tool. I want to package these in a single binary, using pp multi-script feature. So far, so good. But on Windows it matters whether the program is built with --gui or not. If I build with --gui invoking the

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Johan, I have an application that comes in two forms: as a command line tool, and as a GUI tool. I want to package these in a single binary, using pp which benefit do you expect from packing: Avoiding "installation", reducing size, or something else? multi-script feature. So far, so

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Oliver, On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:16:37 +0200, Oliver Betz wrote: > which benefit do you expect from packing: > > Avoiding "installation", reducing size, or something else? Mostly avoiding complexity and unnecessary overhead. The cli version is fully contained in the gui version. Reducing

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Oliver, Thanks for all suggestions. A bit of background: I am 100% linux user/developer. Since Windows people want to run some of my applications and since most Windows users are not capable of installing perl and modules and so on I figured out how to use PAR (pp) and InnoSetup to produce

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Johan, which benefit do you expect from packing: Avoiding "installation", reducing size, or something else? Mostly avoiding complexity and unnecessary overhead. The cli version is fully contained in the gui version. Which kind of complexity and overhead do you mean? What would be the

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 19:40:58 +0200, Oliver Betz wrote: > Which kind of complexity and overhead do you mean? Having multiple copies of the same code installed may sooner or later cause confusion. > What would be the drawback of using a (subset of a) portable Perl > distribution together with

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Johan, What would be the drawback of using a (subset of a) portable Perl distribution together with your Perl code, IOW just a bunch of files, and run it directly? It seems non-trivial to put the bunch of files together, distribute par is good in doing this selection. them and have the

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Reducing installer size. Not 'installed size' since the binary needs to be copied under two names due to the lack of symlinks. What do you mean by 'lack of symlinks'?

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 20:21:22 +0200, Kenneth Ölwing wrote: > What do you mean by 'lack of symlinks'? I must admit I haven't really kept up with Windows lately (and I don't plan to). Anyway, the symbolic links are of no real importance to this discussion.

Par with strawberry-Perl

Can anybody make a comment about this: On 4/17/20 12:00 PM, Manikandan Narayan wrote: Hi We are using strawberry-perl Error when using the executable perl in client machine that does not have strawberry-perl in it Can't load

Re: Par with strawberry-Perl

Hello Mike, There are likely missing DLLs that need to be added to the pp call using the --link option. Finding these manually can be a pain, so have a look at pp_autolink or pp_simple (the former is mine, but adapted from the latter). https://github.com/shawnlaffan/perl-pp-autolink

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Welle, Thanks for your reply. I, too, have been using pp + innosetup for many years, so that is not the problem. BTW my apps are Perl/Wx based. I was responding to Olivers suggestions to have par handle the file selection and bundling, and innoset doing the unpacking. I wondered if anyone

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Johan, no, you are not the only one. I have a fairly complex GUI application for Windows and macOS written in Perl and Tcl/Tk (I switched away from Perl/Tk a couple of months ago). For Windows, I have been using the combination pp+Innosetup for years now, and I am very happy with it (for what

Re: Multiple entry points (MS Windows)

Hi Johan, I, too, have been using pp + innosetup for many years, so that is not the problem. BTW my apps are Perl/Wx based. Seemingly I'm not recognizing the advantage in using pp *in addition* to InnoSetup. What is the point to use InnoSetup just to transport *one single exe*? If you work