Oh. - Then why stick with strawberry perl  if its just one machine ?


On 8/3/2010 8:36 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Yes I know that the executables created with perlapp or P'AR don't need Perl on the machines they are running on, but I am talking about the development machine, not the target machine.

--
Octavian

----- Original Message ----- From: "perltk" <per...@maine.rr.com>
To: <wxperl-users@perl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: AW: Distributing wxPerl applications - Perlapp


The point of perlapp is that you don't even need perl installed on machines where app runs. So you can have a different verison(s) of perl installed and the standalone will completely ignore them. Like PAR, it builds its own distro in a temp directory and the search path is set to that. You can alos modify the PERL5LIB with the builder or on the fly in your app if need to.

My perlapp experience so far::
linux, Windows: Perl Tk works great. &  Wxperl - just getting started
Mac : Wxperl Limited success. Ended up building an '.App' package with shell script - worked fine

OSX comes with wxperl installed, by the way.



On 8/3/2010 4:08 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Thank you for clarifications.

I haven't even tried to use perlapp with Strawberry because I thought that they are not compatible.

The Perl distro we use is important (in my opinion) because I prefer to have just a single Perl distro installed on a machine, and because I use that distro for running WxPerl apps, Catalyst apps, mod_perl and other modules, and for some things Strawberry works better.

For example, I am not able to install the latest Padre under ActivePerl.

Of course, Strawberry has its own issues so I am trying to find the best solution.

--
Octavian

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Dubois" <j...@activestate.com>
To: "'Octavian Rasnita'" <orasn...@gmail.com>; "'ademmler'" <n...@ademmler.com>; "'Johan Vromans'" <jvrom...@squirrel.nl>; "'Daniel Carrera'" <dcarr...@gmail.com>
Cc: <wxperl-users@perl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: AW: Distributing wxPerl applications


PerlApp supports many platforms (AIX, HP-UX, Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris,
Windows), and generally requires a version of Perl that has been
compiled with the same options as ActivePerl. Therefore the
documentation lists the various minimum versions of ActivePerl that are
supported.

The Perl versions distributed by various vendors (Apple, IBM,
Sun/Oracle, Red Hat) are mostly not compatible with ActivePerl and will
therefore not work with PerlApp.

Strawberry Perl however is compiled with the same options as ActivePerl
and is at the core very similar. The differences are more in the
packaging, and in additional stuff that is included in each
distribution.

I know that the standard regression tests for the PDK did pass with the
latest Strawberry Perl releases, so I'm sure it works in general, but
there are always little details that might be different. If we get a
concrete bug report, then we'll try to fix it, if possible with a
reasonable amount of effort.

One feature of PerlApp 9.x that won't work with Strawberry though is the
cross-platform wrapping: you can use ActivePerl and PerlApp on Windows
to build binaries for Linux and OS X. This requires that the local Perl
installation includes PPM4, which is only available in ActivePerl.

One thing is not quite clear to me though: Once you build a standalone
executable with PerlApp you no longer need ActivePerl or Strawberry Perl on the deployment system (that is kind of the point of the whole exercise),
so why does it matter if you build with one vs. the other?

Cheers,
-Jan


On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Octavian Rasnita wrote:

I haven't tried perlapp with Strawberry Perl, but if I remember well I read somewhere that PDK only works with ActivePerl. Maybe the announcement made
by ActiveState wasn't clear.

It was something like "PDK version X only works with ActivePerl version X and above". Maybe it should have been "works with Perl X and above".... but I am not so sure because I think I also remember that I've read explicitly
that PDK requires ActivePerl.

Isn't this true?

--
Octavian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Dubois" <j...@activestate.com>
To: "'ademmler'" <n...@ademmler.com>; "'Johan Vromans'"
<jvrom...@squirrel.nl>; "'Daniel Carrera'" <dcarr...@gmail.com>
Cc: <wxperl-users@perl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:12 AM
Subject: RE: AW: Distributing wxPerl applications


> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, ademmler wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> I am using all of those tools and the major difference is the
concept
>> behind:
>>
>> B) ActiveStae perlapp I could not run wtihout ActiveStae Per . . .
>> (non strawberry)
>
> Could you provide me with a sample that fails?  PerlApp generally
works
> fine with Strawberry Perl, but I haven't tested it with Strawberry
and
> wxPerl.
>
> Ideally I would like to know:
>
> * Exact version of Strawberry Perl
> * How you built/installed wxPerl (and which version)
> * Version of the PDK (`perlapp --version --verbose` output)
> * Small sample script
> * Did you use Wx::Perl::Packager (which version)
> * Commandline used to wrap the sample script
> * How it fails to work (any error messages?)
>
> Cheers,
> -Jan
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5335 (20100802) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5335 (20100802) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5335 (20100802) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5335 (20100802) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com






__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5336 (20100803) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5336 (20100803) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





Reply via email to