Missing perl516.dll on running packed executables with Strawberry Perl 5.16.1

[Dave Sedar]

The packed program runs fine on my development computer (Vista Business SP2 32-
bit),
but fails "The program can't start because perl516.dll is missing from your
computer. Try re-installing the program to fix this problem"
running it on the target PC (Windows 7 Professional SP1 64 bit).

My program uses: DBI, Tk, Socket, Sys::Hostname.

Is there a pp option I should be using?

[Roderich Schupp]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Dave Sedar <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The packed program runs fine on my development computer (Vista Business SP2 32-
> bit),
> but fails "The program can't start because perl516.dll is missing from your
> computer. Try re-installing the program to fix this problem"
> running it on the target PC (Windows 7 Professional SP1 64 bit).

> Is there a pp option I should be using?

Your use case - packing on 32-bit Windows and running on 64-bit Windows -
isn't supported.

Cheers, Roderich

[Roderich Schupp]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM, David Sedar <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the information, but this was working perfectly with before I
> upgraded Strawberry Perl from 5.12.3

Does it fail in an all 32-bit environment as well,
e.g. temporarily rename the top level Strawberry folder on your
32-bit "packing" machine, then try to run the packed executable there.

If it fails, please post the complete output of building PAR::Packer, i.e.

...unpack tarball

perl Makefile.PL
dmake
dmake test

Cheers, Roderich

[Roderich Schupp]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM, David Sedar <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roderich,
> Yes it fails the same way on my development machine when I rename the
> Strawberry directory so it cannot be found.
>
> Please find attached log files from Par::Packer 1.013:

These don't contain enough information, because you just re-ran the
commands in a pre-existing build environment. Please try again
from a clean slate.

Cheers, Roderich

[Roderich Schupp]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, David Sedar <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK what do I need to remove?

Just the PAR-Packer-1.013* directory where you built it. Then unpack
the tarball,
change into the top level directory and

perl Makefile.PL
dmake
dmake test

> I found that PAR::Packer requires getopt::argvfile and module::scandeps,
> should I remove and re-install these too?

Not necessary.

Cheers, Roderich

[David Sedar]

Roderich,

Thanks for the information, but this was working perfectly with before I
upgraded Strawberry Perl from 5.12.3

Is there any way around the problem?
Regards
DAS

On 28 September 2012 12:17, Roderich Schupp
<roderic...@googlemail.com>wrote:

[David Sedar]

Roderich,

OK what do I need to remove?

PAR exists in:
C:\Strawberry\perl\site\lib,
C:\Strawberry\perl\vendor\lib,

I found that PAR::Packer requires getopt::argvfile and module::scandeps,
should I remove and re-install these too?

Regards
DAS

On 28 September 2012 15:14, Roderich Schupp
<roderic...@googlemail.com>wrote:

[Roderich Schupp]

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Bob Hallissy <bob...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I must be misunderstanding your statement -- could you help me understand
> it? I've used PP to build a par-based EXE on Windows XP and it runs on both
> 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7 (neither of which have Perl installed). Is this
> not supposed to work?

I MIGHT work (and in your case it did), but I don't claim it's supposed to :)
I certainly did nothing to make it work.

Cheers, Roderich

[David Sedar]

Roderich,
I have installed cpan 'patch' 0.14 (and 'diff' for good measure).
However not sure when and where I should invoke it.
Running it before or after 'perl makefile.pl' and 'dmake'
in the PAR-Packer-1.013 folder produces the same output:
'patching file Makefile.PL'
'Assertion failed: hunk, file .\src\patch\2.5.9\patch-2.5.9-src\patch.c,
line 354'
'This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual
way,
Please contact the application's support team for more information'

Could you please clarify what I am doing wrong
Regards
DAS

On 30 September 2012 12:02, David Sedar <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Roderich,

> Many thanks for the diff file, but I am rather a newbie:
> exactly how do I apply it?
> Regards
> DAS
>
> On 29 September 2012 19:19, Roderich Schupp <
> roderic...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM, David Sedar <dave....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I can see the error, what is the fix please?
>>
>> Apply the attached patch (it's already in my source repository, but I
>> haven't made
>> a release yet).
>>
>> Cheers, Roderich
>>
>
>

[David Sedar]

Roderich,
Have more or less figured out how to invoke Patch, this is the output it
produced:
Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -ru PAR-Packer-1.013\myldr\Makefile.PL
PAR-Packer-1.013_patched\myldr\Makefile.PL
|--- PAR-Packer-1.013\myldr\Makefile.PL Thu Jan 26 19:51:55 2012
|+++ PAR-Packer-1.013_patched\myldr\Makefile.PL Tue Apr 10 15:08:37 2012
--------------------------
Patching file Makefile.PL using Plan A...
Hunk #1 FAILED at 113.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.PL.rej
Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
can't find file to patch at input line 27
Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|NOOP)';
| } else {
|diff -ru PAR-Packer-1.013\myldr\winres\pp.rc
PAR-Packer-1.013_patched\myldr\winres\pp.rc
|--- PAR-Packer-1.013\myldr\winres\pp.rc Thu Jan 26 19:51:55 2012
|+++ PAR-Packer-1.013_patched\myldr\winres\pp.rc Tue Apr 10 14:25:10 2012
--------------------------
File to patch:
Skip this patch? [y]
Skipping patch.
Hunk #1 ignored at 5.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
Hmm...missing header for unified diff at line 37 of patch
The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
can't find file to patch at input line 37
Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option?
File to patch:
Skip this patch? [y]
Skipping patch.
Hmm...missing header for unified diff at line 38 of patch
The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
can't find file to patch at input line 38
Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option?
and on and on...
Regards
DAS