Yeah, PAR is PAR
You can pack however many modules (scripts) you want, and invoke each using mybigfatexe fooapp ... via .bat/.lnk/shellscript/.exe
Same strategy would work for perlapp or perl2exe
You could also pack PAR::WebStart's perlws, and pack each app using its make_par, then invoke each app using mybigfatexeshortcut.lnk or mybigfatexeshortcut.bat, or mybigfatexeshortcut.exe which just does system perlws.exe mybigfatexeshortcut.pnlp
cava packager provides something like out of the box
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] [select] |
The main problem with PAR is that it packs in one exe perl core and all used modules, so out exe is very big...
And if I need more than one script, all of them will be packed with it's own perl and used modules!
That's useless =(
So if there is a way to pack scripts in small executables that use some other dll with perl and all needed modules?
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
“Inconvenient,” perhaps, but not “useless.”
In all seriousness, what is so utterly wrong with just using a subdirectory? Apple’s OS/X system is rather elegant, I think, in taking that approach with how they package all applications: they’re actually folders. Just put your executable together more-or-less as a stub, and put the necessary Perl source modules into a directory in a chosen location.
(When I have done this, I used a nested directory structure: the outer directory contained README.TXT and an inner folder named guts. The entire thing was marked read-only. And the README file contained a message which basically said: “Keep your mitts off that folder and everything that it contains. These aren’t the ’droids you’re looking for.” I got a few whimsical comments about that, so I know that some people read it.) To me, this is every bit as convenient a form of “packaging” as a DLL-file would be, and considerably more maintainable. It might well be more efficient, too, because Windows will routinely use VM-mapped file I/O when working with files.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
The main problem with PAR is that it packs in one exe perl core and all used modules, so out exe is very big...
And if I need more than one script, all of them will be packed with it's own perl and used modules!
Not if you pack them all in the same file as I already explained.
That's useless =(
Yes, reading is hard :)
I do find working software is very useful
So if there is a way to pack scripts in small executables that use some other dll with perl and all needed modules?
My answer in Re: Pack multiple scripts in executables with one shared core dll wasn't a joke, either the par way, or the cava packager way is workable, and you can always create a relocatable perl and add modules to it, zip it, and ship it , if that works for your platform
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |