Freewrap does not work
RayGun
executable. But all I get is a prompt. i.e. I execute the following
freewraptclsh.exe test.tcl -w test
and I would just get a TCLSH:
#
Any help is appreciated
Raymond
Roy Terry
a Linux version of freewrap. Freewrap does work,
but it does not do magic.
Roy
Gerald W. Lester
for any OS on any OS.
See: wiki.tcl.tk/starpack and wiki.tcl.tk/starkit and
wiki.tcl.tk/tclkit
--
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Gerald W. Lester | "The man who fights for his ideals is
|
| Gerald...@cox.net | the man who is alive." -- Cervantes
|
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
Jeffrey Hobbs
>>Hi, I am trying to use freewraptclsh.exe (windows) to generate a linux
>>executable. But all I get is a prompt. i.e. I execute the following
Roy Terry wrote:
> To freewrap for Linux, I believe you will require
> a Linux version of freewrap. Freewrap does work,
> but it does not do magic.
This is not a limitation you will find in the Tcl Dev Kit TclApp,
which is VFS/starkit based. You can specify the base kit for any
OS you like and generate the required exe. You will still need
to run the end product on the right OS. We haven't figured out
how to trick that one out yet ;).
--
Jeff Hobbs The Tcl Guy
Senior Developer http://www.ActiveState.com/
Tcl Support and Productivity Solutions
Luciano
it for some time and it seems to work better than Freewrap. And it is
more convenient because you download er... "base files" for Windows
and Linux. Then you wrap your app like this:
tclwrap -uses i386-linux-wish -main hello.tcl -out hello
... to produce a Linux executable. And...
tclwrap -uses i386-win32-wish -main hello.tcl -out hello.exe
... to produce a Windows executable.
So it doesn't matter which of these two platforms you're running, you
can always generate executables for both.
Tclwrap is made by Souza Monteiro, a Tcl expert from a country where
Tcl is virtually unknown and/or ignored. Unfortunately, his site has
been down for a few days. I'll come back with news as soon as I have
any. I also think he runs the site from his own home machine, because
it is never up in the after hours, it seems that he shuts down the
machine when he goes nighty-night.
http://router.souzamonteiro.com
--
Luciano ES
<luci...@ggmmxx.nneett>
Santos, SP - Brasil
<-quote-> **************************************************
Dennis LaBelle
This freeWrap feature does work. I tested it again a couple of minutes ago.
I think you just need some clarification on the command line syntax for your
task. In your situation you want to use a command such as:
freewraptclsh myprog.tcl -w freewrapTCLSH
where freewrapTCLSH is the name of the Linux version of the freewraptclsh
file. In this case, the freewraptclsh.exe program will combine your script
(myprog.tcl) with the Linux file freewrapTCLSH to produce a binary
executable file that can be run under Linux.
Dennis LaBelle (The freeWrap Guy)
Dennis LaBelle
> Another good tool you might want to try is Tclwrap. I've been using
> it for some time and it seems to work better than Freewrap. And it is
> more convenient because you download er... "base files" for Windows
> and Linux. Then you wrap your app like this:
>
> tclwrap -uses i386-linux-wish -main hello.tcl -out hello
> ... to produce a Linux executable. And...
>
> tclwrap -uses i386-win32-wish -main hello.tcl -out hello.exe
> ... to produce a Windows executable.
>
> So it doesn't matter which of these two platforms you're running, you
> can always generate executables for both.
>
> Tclwrap is made by Souza Monteiro, a Tcl expert from a country where
> Tcl is virtually unknown and/or ignored. Unfortunately, his site has
> been down for a few days. I'll come back with news as soon as I have
> any. I also think he runs the site from his own home machine, because
> it is never up in the after hours, it seems that he shuts down the
> machine when he goes nighty-night.
>
> http://router.souzamonteiro.com
>
FreeWrap has similar syntax for generating executable files for foreign
operating systems. Raymond was very close to using the freeWrap syntax
correctly. I added a response to this thread that I hope will clear up his
misunderstanding.
However, I don't feel that your statement which essentially says "Scrap that
application and learn a new one I think is better" is an appropriate
response when someone has a simple misunderstanding of a program's command
line syntax.
As for why you think Tclwrap is better than freeWrap, I hope you are basing
your statement on significant personal experience with both products. I
would gladly accept any comments you would like to make regarding
freeWrap's capabilities or deficiencies by e-mail.
Dennis LaBelle
Dennis LaBelle
>> RayGun wrote:
>>>Hi, I am trying to use freewraptclsh.exe (windows) to generate a linux
>>>executable. But all I get is a prompt. i.e. I execute the following
>
> Roy Terry wrote:
> > To freewrap for Linux, I believe you will require
> > a Linux version of freewrap. Freewrap does work,
> > but it does not do magic.
>
> This is not a limitation you will find in the Tcl Dev Kit TclApp,
> which is VFS/starkit based. You can specify the base kit for any
> OS you like and generate the required exe. You will still need
> to run the end product on the right OS. We haven't figured out
> how to trick that one out yet ;).
>
On the contrary! The Tcl Dev Kit also relies on a Linux copy of starkit to
do cross-operating system program construction. You simply call this file
"the base kit". If by "limitation" you mean the availability of a Linux
version of freeWrap, both Windows and Linux versions can be downloaded from
SourceForge.
In my opinion, your feedback sounds like a thinly-veiled attempt to promote
your product.
Dennis LaBelle
Ramon Ribó
Hello,
I have been an extensively user of Freewrap 4 and it has really helped us
to easy wrapping of
applications. However, I would like to add a comment about Freewrap 5 on
something that
I consider that could have have a different design.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Freewap5 copies the tcl source files to a
temporal, makes some
kind of modifications to the original source files, freewraps them, and copy
the original sources
again to their original location.
My personal opinion is that a compiler (or wrapper), should never modify
in any way the original
source files. It has basically two problems:
- It is dangerous. If something fails (and things always fail in some
moment), you end up with
some trash files in your directory, and it is not easy for a simple
user to recover from it
- It can change access and modification dates. Not terrible but not
perfect.
I hope that this comments can help for future Freewap development.
Regards,
Ramon Ribó
"Dennis LaBelle" <dlab...@nycap.rr.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:RTqva.53257$O06....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Gerald W. Lester
Dennis, sorry you've slightly misstated facts here. Starkits are
platform independent and can be used on any platform. There is no
linix/mac/windows version.
Tclkit is platform specific as are starpacks.
> In my opinion, your feedback sounds like a thinly-veiled attempt to promote
> your product.
While Tcl Dev Kit is an ActiveState product, starkits, tclkit and sdx
are not. They are from Jean-Claude at equi4.com.
Luciano
too many alternatives. You use Linux, you should know :-)
I discovered Tclwrap a few months ago, almost a year now. Around the
same time you released Freewrap 5.4. These were the events:
- I was disappointed when you dropped the UPX compression because
then resulting executables became bigger. I had just made an
application and wanted to distribute smaller files if possible.
- A lot worse was the fact that Freewrap 5.4 had downgraded from
TCL/TK 8.4 to 8.3.5. That annoyed me the most because my app had a
text widget and I had already developed too deep an affection for the
newfound Undo/Redo features! :-)
- However, very accurate statistical evidence - 2 against 3 :-) -
proved that the executables generated with compression wouldn't run
on Win2K machines. So I thought, heck, the UPX compression has to go,
but the Undo/Redo feature should be able to stay!
- I also remember I had a very hard time making Freewrap pack an
application with several files, especially an icon. Packing a single
tcl file was always easy, but planning relative/absolute paths at the
development stage so it would pack right with Freewrap was a little
nightmare. I read...
http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/freewrap_filenames.html
... about a dozen times and couldn't make things work right. I admit
Granted, I am a little thick (still don't quite understand that
Starkit business for example), but anyway, I just got sick of it and
gave up the icon.
- At that precise moment, I ran into Tclwrap. It used TCL/TK 8.4, was
easier to use (I packed my icon!) and the executables seemed to run a
bit faster. That when I was using a very old machine and otherwise
minor performance differences were noticeable to me. The machine I
use now is over 10 times as fast as the old one, so I wouldn't be
able to tell.
And that's how I ended up with the impression that Tclwrap was better
then Freewrap. I never packed anything else since then, and I see you
have released a new version that uses TCL/TK 8.4 (downloading as I
type). I should release a new app towards the end of the month, so I
will certainly give it a new go.
BTW: the page http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/freewrap_howto.html has
a broken link. "Naming and referring to wrapped files" apparently
points to a file in your hard disk instead of the on-line page. I
should have told you that months ago, but I'm very lazy and always
doing half a dozen things at the same time so I forgot, sorry about
that.
Thanks for sharing Freewrap with everyone.
Best regards,
--
Luciano ES
<luci...@ggmmxx.nneett>
Santos, SP - Brasil
<-quote-> **************************************************
RayGun
comes with freewrap is wrong. The syntax indicated in the document is
what I have written.
Thanks again,
Raymond
Dennis LaBelle <dlab...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:<ekqva.160253$M_2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
RayGun
Only thing is that my scripts include packages from all over the
place. What is the simplest way to include all these packages?
Thanks
Raymond
"Gerald W. Lester" <gerald...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3EBC5E79...@cox.net>...
Steve Landers
> I didn't know of starpack/starkit/tclkit. I tried it out and like it.
> Only thing is that my scripts include packages from all over the
> place. What is the simplest way to include all these packages?
Put them in the Starkit's VFS - there's plenty of examples on how it is done
at http://www.equi4.com/266
Steve
--
Steve Landers Software Design Solutions
Digital Smarties st...@DigitalSmarties.com
Perth, Western Australia DigitalSmarties.com
Dennis LaBelle
> Thank-you! Just the reply I was looking for. The documentation that
> comes with freewrap is wrong. The syntax indicated in the document is
> what I have written.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Raymond
>
As far as I can tell, the freeWrap documentation is correct. I reviewed it
as part of my answering your question. Could you quote the section of the
documentation that you think is wrong so I may rewrite it?
Dennis LaBelle
RayGun
packages it needs? It seems like that in order to use starpacks, we
have to create a whole new "project" just to support it.
Am I missing something? Any clarifications would be appreciated.
Thanks
Raymond
Steve Landers <st...@DigitalSmarties.com> wrote in message news:<3ec04b56$0$10...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>...
RayGun
must have just mis-interpreted it.
Curious, is a solaris-sparc version of freewrap in the works?
appologies,
Raymond
Dennis LaBelle <labe...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:<H3gwa.156$5y5...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
Steve Landers
> Isn't there a way for it to automatically search and add in the
> packages it needs? It seems like that in order to use starpacks, we
> have to create a whole new "project" just to support it.
You mean, to look in a repository for the package you "package require" and
insert these into your .vfs structure automagically?
No, not yet. Been lots of discussion about it though.
If you want a self contained starkit (i.e. containing all the packages it
uses) then you need to copy the packages into the .vfs/lib directory and
make sure "starkit::startup" procedure is called (to add .vfs/lib to the
auto_path).
HTH
lvi...@yahoo.com
According to RayGun <rkn...@sfu.ca>:
:Isn't there a way for it to automatically search and add in the
:packages it needs? It seems like that in order to use starpacks, we
:have to create a whole new "project" just to support it.
How would that work? I guess one could redefine the package and unknown
commands so that when invoked, they make copies of the code after finding
it.
However, since Tcl isn't going to invoke the package or unknown procs until
needed, one would need to force the program in question through every
path to locate the necessary pieces.
Then there is the problem of applications which source in user contributed
code - those apps will never be able to 100% guarantee to have a stand alone
nature... The best they can do is document what goes into the user contributed
code to extend the auto_path.
--
The Tenth Annual Tcl/Tk Conference <URL: http://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2003 >
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
<URL: mailto:lvi...@yahoo.com > <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/ >
Veronica Loell
starkits and tclkit. If you go the "scripted" way, you will probably
make use of only tclkit and kitten. If you go the standalone way
maybe it would be worth considering how kitten can be used for that.
I think that even if you are not all that concerned with portability,
it would be a good idea to point any sort of general effort towards
not only making it easy to pack up starpacks, but also to make it
easy to keep them platform independent (except of course for the
tclkit-part).
I havn't really dug into starpacks, but it seems like we might use
the same method of assembling them as starkits. The only difference
being packing the starkit and tclkit together at the end.
Just some random thoughts.
- Veronica Loell
Steve Cassidy
> According to RayGun <rkn...@sfu.ca>:
> :Isn't there a way for it to automatically search and add in the
> :packages it needs? It seems like that in order to use starpacks, we
> :have to create a whole new "project" just to support it.
>
> How would that work? I guess one could redefine the package and unknown
> commands so that when invoked, they make copies of the code after finding
> it.
Sorry, missed the earlier context in this thread but finding packages
you don't have is just what CANTCL is supposed to be able to do for you.
If you want package foo version 2.7 you should be able to get it from
http://purl.org/tcl/cantcl/packages/foo2.7.zip (or .kit or just foo.zip
for the latest version) -- assuming the package is on CANTCL of course.
Given this, one could write a package unknown handler to download and
install the package. Alternatively you could write a starpack generator
to download all dependant packages for an application and bundle them
into a starpack.
While this isn't all possible quite yet, you can upload packages to
CANTCL now or build TIP55 versions of your packages. A new version of
CANTCL should surface soon with most of the capabilities described in
http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~cassidy/ausweb2003/
I hope to be able to demonstrate some kind of auto-starkit builder by
the tcl conference...which reminds me, must go and write that abstract...
Steve