InstallJammer 1.0a1 Released!
Damon Courtney
InstallJammer 1.0a1!
This is the first official release of InstallJammer since work began on
it quite some time ago. InstallJammer is the renamed, re-designed
InstallBase project and has been in work for over two years for this
release.
InstallJammer can be found at:
InstallJammer is a multiplatform GUI installer and builder designed to
be completely cross-platform and function on Windows and most all
version of UNIX with eventual support for Mac OS X.
InstallJammer Features:
* A full-featured install builder.
* Installs are packaged in single binary executables for each platform
making web distribution easy.
* Support for multiple install themes.
* Default install themes that resemble popular, commercial installers.
* A high level of configurability.
* Built-in support for Windows install conventions.
* Automatic creation of an uninstaller.
* Easily extended to new platforms.
Downloads are available at:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=148203
Feedback and bug reports are greatly appreciated.
Kevin Walzer
I didn't see the source code for this at SF. Can these binaries be
unwrapped via SDX?
--
Cheers,
Kevin Walzer, PhD
WordTech Software - "Tame the Terminal"
http://www.wordtech-software.com
sw at wordtech-software.com
Damon Courtney
> I didn't see the source code for this at SF. Can these binaries be
> unwrapped via SDX?
I didn't have a chance to put out a .tar.gz file yet. The binaries
are not Tclkits, so no, you can't unwrap them with SDX. They are zip
files however, so you could unpack them if you like. I will update the
release with a .tar.gz shortly. 0-]
Thanks!
Damon
Julian H J Loaring
proceeded without error. Double-clicked on C:\Program
Files\InstallJammer\InstallJammer.exe and nothing happens...
Jeff Godfrey
"Julian H J Loaring" <jh...@hippospace.com> wrote in message
news:dlt6fp$8hv$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Downloaded InstallJammer-1.0a10-Setup.exe and ran on Windows XP.
> Install proceeded without error. Double-clicked on C:\Program
> Files\InstallJammer\InstallJammer.exe and nothing happens...
Hmmmm... While it's probably not overly helpful to you, I can verify
that InstallJammer *does* work for me under Windows XP, using the
standard installation (same path as mentioned above).
FWIW - I'm using InstallJammer Version 1.0a1, Build 0.9.1.0
Jeff
Ingemar Hansson
I have the same problem on my computer (Win XP Home edition). I tried
both installing in standard directory and in another directory. I can
see the process running for a second or two and then it silently dies.
If starts the exe-file from a Cygwin rxvt terminal window the program
returns the exit code 5, which usually means "Access denied" on
Windows.
Jeff reports that it works for him, so why does it work on some
computers and not on others?
Are there any environment variables needed?
I use english language in my Windows installation, but since I'm a
Swede I use Swedish locale. Could it have anything to do with that?
Regards,
Ingemar
David N. Welton
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
Kevin Walzer
> I'd be interested in seeing sources myself...
>
Ralf Fassel
| The binaries at the site are zip files--just unzip 'em.
Then why are they not named accordingly?
"InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin" sure does not look like a
ZIP archive to me, and 'file' is of different opinion too:
% file $FTP/InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin
InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable,
Intel 80386, version 1, statically linked, corrupted section header size
Yes, it unzips ok, but you sure keep users of other OSses out by using
such a distribution method.
R'
Ralf Fassel
Dan Smart
> * Kevin Walzer <s...@wordtech-software.com>
> | The binaries at the site are zip files--just unzip 'em.
>
> Then why are they not named accordingly?
Because they are also a programs?
That being how most of the wraop a bunch of scripts into a program
mechanisms work?
> "InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin" sure does not look like a
> ZIP archive to me, and 'file' is of different opinion too:
>
> % file $FTP/InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin
> InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable,
> Intel 80386, version 1, statically linked, corrupted section header size
>
"file" is correct, it is an executable, it just also happens to be a zip
file.
> Yes, it unzips ok, but you sure keep users of other OSses out by using
> such a distribution method.
>
How does it keep users of other OS out? Anyone can unzip it, onl;y
people on the OS for which the specific program was built can run it.
> R'
Dan "All typed by hand this time, not going to do that again soon
though" Smart
Ralf Fassel
| > | The binaries at the site are zip files--just unzip 'em.
| > Then why are they not named accordingly?
|
| Because they are also a programs? That being how most of the wraop
| a bunch of scripts into a program mechanisms work?
The 'usual' distribution mechanism for programs on Unix was zipped
tarfiles up to now. If 'they' provide executables or self extracting
archives, I expect something either named for my OS, or something that
runs on every OS (like a shar archive). I sure do not expect a file
named *linux*.bin to contain a ZIP archive, if not even 'file' tells
me so. So if I'm looking for the !linux version, at least *I* don't
bother very much longer when I look at the distribution site.
I can understand that one cannot expect the average Windows user to
have all software installed which is necessary to unzip an archive.
But the average Linux box _has_ everything installed (gzip), and on
other platforms the executable format is worth just nothing.
Plus, it is so easy: just provide another file named .tgz (might just
be a copy of the .bin!), or at least have some wording on the
distribution page that `for other platforms, use the linux file as ZIP
archive'.
| Anyone can unzip it, onl;y people on the OS for which the specific
| program was built can run it.
So todays folks are born with the knowledge that one just can unzip
arbitrary linux executables on say HP-UX? Must be the next generation
taking over here...
| Dan "All typed by hand this time, not going to do that again soon
| though" Smart
Gute Besserung!
R', 'nuff said
Dan Smart
> * Dan Smart <ne...@dansmart.com>
> | > | The binaries at the site are zip files--just unzip 'em.
> | > Then why are they not named accordingly?
> |
> | Because they are also a programs? That being how most of the wraop
> | a bunch of scripts into a program mechanisms work?
> | [...] How does it keep users of other OS out?
>
> The 'usual' distribution mechanism for programs on Unix was zipped
> tarfiles up to now. If 'they' provide executables or self extracting
> archives, I expect something either named for my OS, or something that
> runs on every OS (like a shar archive). I sure do not expect a file
> named *linux*.bin to contain a ZIP archive, if not even 'file' tells
> me so. So if I'm looking for the !linux version, at least *I* don't
> bother very much longer when I look at the distribution site.
>
Linux. They don't install, they don't need to be unpacked and built,
they just run. They also happen to be zip files that contain the tcl
sources.
> I can understand that one cannot expect the average Windows user to
> have all software installed which is necessary to unzip an archive.
> But the average Linux box _has_ everything installed (gzip), and on
> other platforms the executable format is worth just nothing.
On linux and windows that executable formats are very valuable, because
they don't need installing or building, you can just use them.
> Plus, it is so easy: just provide another file named .tgz (might just
> be a copy of the .bin!), or at least have some wording on the
> distribution page that `for other platforms, use the linux file as ZIP
> archive'.
The second post by Damon Courtney said:
> I didn't have a chance to put out a .tar.gz file yet.
> The binaries are not Tclkits, so no, you can't unwrap
> them with SDX. They are zip files however, so you could
> unpack them if you like. I will update the release with
> a .tar.gz shortly. 0-]
So what exactly is your problem?
>
> | Anyone can unzip it, onl;y people on the OS for which the specific
> | program was built can run it.
>
> So todays folks are born with the knowledge that one just can unzip
> arbitrary linux executables on say HP-UX? Must be the next generation
> taking over here...
I expect that after someone has been told that they can unzip the
exeutables, that they will know that the executables are unzippable, no
more, no less.
>
> | Dan "All typed by hand this time, not going to do that again soon
> | though" Smart
>
> Gute Besserung!
> R', 'nuff said
I think my ability to dictate is improving, any aerros above are likely
post dictation edits.
Dan "I wish my shoulder didn't hurt" Smart
Donal K. Fellows
> have all software installed which is necessary to unzip an archive.
These days (i.e. for several years) they do. ZIP file management is
built into Explorer in all versions of XP. However "just run it and it
works" is nice for everyone. :-)
Donal.
Ralf Fassel
| The downloadable programs are executables, one for Windows, and one
| for Linux. They don't install, they don't need to be unpacked and
| built, they just run.
| On linux and windows that executable formats are very valuable,
| because they don't need installing or building, you can just use
| them.
See below.
| The second post by Damon Courtney said:
| > I didn't have a chance to put out a .tar.gz file yet.
| > The binaries are not Tclkits, so no, you can't unwrap them with
| > SDX. They are zip files however, so you could unpack them if you
| > like. I will update the release with a .tar.gz shortly. 0-]
|
| So what exactly is your problem?
Not having read that post, I guess. My fault.
However.
First dialog when running the .bin on linux:
This will install InstallJammer on your computer.
Continue? Yes/No.
Installation not necessary? Well. Ok, YES, install.
Next dialog: It is recommended that you close all other applications
before continuing.
Excuse me? At least they didn't ask to reboot after installation...
It is this Windows-like nonsense thrown upon the rest of the world
which I oppose. If a program does not need installation, fine. If a
program needs installation, give me a proper archive and a README.
Dan, I understand that you're not the author, and that my rants are
going to the wrong address, so let's settle this. I will continue to
hate the click-on-everything-that-looks-like-an-exe habit, but now
that I know that all .exes are really just ZIP-files in disguise, I
will make my way through the new glittering shining self-extracting
world. *Ehem*, ;-)
R'
lvi...@gmail.com
According to Donal K. Fellows <donal.k...@man.ac.uk>:
:> I can understand that one cannot expect the average Windows user to
Well, as long as the application that is run isn't a trojan, worm,
virus, etc. ... which is why, on the XP system I have, the admins
set them up to try to prevent most user installations, etc. These days,
at least on Windows, the "Wild West" nature continues to be dangerous.
--
<URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/ > Indescribable,uncontainable,all powerful,untameable
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
<URL: mailto:lvi...@gmail.com > <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/ >
Damon Courtney
> before continuing.
>
> Excuse me? At least they didn't ask to reboot after installation...
The text of a each pane in the install is culled from popular Windows
alternatives. It can easily be changed to whatever you like. I just
don't bother.
> It is this Windows-like nonsense thrown upon the rest of the world
> which I oppose. If a program does not need installation, fine. If a
> program needs installation, give me a proper archive and a README.
You oppose what we shall call the "Windows install" world because you
like archives and INSTALL files. That's great. I'm fine with those
too. I just think it's a crappy way to distribute professional
software. And, with the hopeful movement of more and more non-clued
users to a Linux platform, you have a wide group of people who don't
understand the concept of, "Dude, just unpack it and read the INSTALL
file."
I would never set my mother up on a Linux machine (or other UNIX, I'm
not picking here), because she would never be able to install anything.
What little she has learned about software installation, she has
learned in the Windows world. She can double-click and hit Next, Next,
Next, Finish, and that's about it. That is the audience I made
InstallJammer for. The developers who want their installation to be
that easy.
> Dan, I understand that you're not the author, and that my rants are
> going to the wrong address, so let's settle this. I will continue to
> hate the click-on-everything-that-looks-like-an-exe habit, but now
> that I know that all .exes are really just ZIP-files in disguise, I
> will make my way through the new glittering shining self-extracting
> world. *Ehem*, ;-)
Not all .exe's are that same format, it just so happens that
InstallJammer executables are nothing more than self-extracting zips.
I completely agree with you, and I have no trouble installing just
about anything I want, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world can.
When I write software, I want it to reach the largest audience
possible. That includes people like my mother, my father and my
83-year-old grandmother. Currently, that means they have to stay in a
Windows world, because they will NEVER figure out the Linux world of
installing software. I wanted a way to distribute my software for
those people, so I wrote InstallJammer.
Damon
Damon Courtney
> proceeded without error. Double-clicked on C:\Program
> Files\InstallJammer\InstallJammer.exe and nothing happens...
I'm not sure WHAT happened here. I have not experienced that on any
Windows machine I've tested on. I don't even know what I could do to
help you debug. If you're familiar with Tcl, you could put some
tk_messageBox's in lib/main.tcl and see where it gets before it dies.
Other than that, I'm not sure what I can do. I can't really test on
your machine. 0-]
Any information you can give me about your machine and setup might be
helpful.
Thanks!
Damon
Damon Courtney
> "InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin" sure does not look like a
> ZIP archive to me, and 'file' is of different opinion too:
>
> % file $FTP/InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin
> InstallJammer-1.0a1-Linux-x86-Install.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable,
> Intel 80386, version 1, statically linked, corrupted section header size
>
> Yes, it unzips ok, but you sure keep users of other OSses out by using
> such a distribution method.
I will release .tgz files with the next release. I didn't do it this
time around mostly because InstallJammer will not run on a platform
that is not supported. Currently, the only supported platforms are
Windows and Linux, but more will be coming once I can find the machines
to compile and test on.
Technically, you should be able to run InstallJammer on any machine
with a newer version of Tcl/Tk, but since I'm not going to test against
those scenarios, I don't really want to open that can of worms. You're
welcome to untar the next release and try to make a go though. 0-]
Damon
pay...@hotmail.com
Is there anybody knows how to run an external program from the
installjammer. I know that there is an "Execute External Program" in
the installjammer. But either that option does not work or I'm doing
something wrong.
Thanks for the help.
Julian H J Loaring
1) InstallJammer.exe does not seem to do anything
2) running InstallJammer.tcl led to two fixes
a) In main.tcl add a package require Img. This enables the
lib/Icons/logo.png image to be read
b) In common.tcl uncomment the package require Itcl line
I now get to see the user interface which I will now try and find time
to experiment with.
Has anyone had success using InstallJammer with a VB Project?
Lisa Pearlson
scripting.
Similar to "Inno Setup" which uses a pascal type of scripting language, and
another one uses Lua scripting.
Unfortunately, InstallJammer seems to depend on a preinstalled version of
TCL. So my installation simple failed and crashed the application.
I sure hope that the user who installs a setup package made with
InstallJammer isn't required to have tcl installed on his system, unless it
gets bundled with the setup package and the setup package doesn't gain too
much in size. Nicest if it could be compiled into binary, but the lack of a
good binary compiler for tcl remains a disadvantage in my opinion.
Lisa
"Julian H J Loaring" <jh...@hippospace.com> wrote in message
news:dp952f$amg$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Gerald W. Lester
> ... Nicest if it could be compiled into binary, but the lack of a
> good binary compiler for tcl remains a disadvantage in my opinion.
Creating an executable and having a compiler are two different things that
in the case of Tcl have nothing to do with each other!
There is a way to distrubute Tcl scripts as executable -- without ever
compiling them or requireing you to already have Tcl on the machine. Please
check out StarPacks at http://tcllib.sourceforge.net/doc/smtp.html and
follow the links on that page.
Jeff Godfrey
"Gerald W. Lester" <Gerald...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v31uf.237569$0l5.138365@dukeread06...
Lisa,
Gerald is right - you need to check out starpacks. That being said,
he obviously copied the wrong link into his reply. While I'm not sure
what link he intended to provide, here's a typical one until he
corrects the above.
Jeff
Gerald W. Lester
Yes Jeff, I did copy the wrong link, I meant to copy the one you pasted --
but had the other one in a copy buffer and pasted it by accident.
Lisa Pearlson
But I was talking about a TCL scriptable installer, not an installer for TCL
scripts.
Inno Setup is one such installer that supports pascal scripting. It replaces
tools like installshield. It compiles your script, or interprets it, and
compresses the whole thing into a setup.exe together with all the files you
wish installed, supporting installation operations like copying files,
modifying ini files, registry keys, and setup wizard.
What I am interested in, is an Inno Setup type tool, but one that supports
TCL instead of Pascal scripting. I was under the impression that
InstallJammer was such tool, but the latest version wouldn't even install on
my PC, generating some TCL error, and crashing.
Lisa
"Gerald W. Lester" <Gerald...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:y82uf.237599$0l5.60258@dukeread06...
Roy Terry
news:43c05b55$0$3530$e4fe...@dreader27.news.xs4all.nl...
> Thanks,
>
> But I was talking about a TCL scriptable installer, not an installer for
TCL
> scripts.
> Inno Setup is one such installer that supports pascal scripting. It
replaces
> tools like installshield. It compiles your script, or interprets it, and
> compresses the whole thing into a setup.exe together with all the files
you
> wish installed, supporting installation operations like copying files,
> modifying ini files, registry keys, and setup wizard.
http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/freedelivery.html
which is not just for freewrapped applications and
perhaps would be a fair starting point. Frankly I believe
no-install applications are superior :)
Damon Courtney
> Thanks,
>
> But I was talking about a TCL scriptable installer, not an installer for TCL
> scripts.
> Inno Setup is one such installer that supports pascal scripting. It replaces
> tools like installshield. It compiles your script, or interprets it, and
> compresses the whole thing into a setup.exe together with all the files you
> wish installed, supporting installation operations like copying files,
> modifying ini files, registry keys, and setup wizard.
That is exactly what InstallJammer is. InstallJammer is written in
100% Tcl/Tk. Every aspect of the installer is scriptable to do
whatever you like. The difference between it and InnoSetup is that the
install builder for InstallJammer does most of the heavy lifting, and
you can script the pieces you want. EVERYTHING in InnoSetup is
scripted. This is not what I wanted for InstallJammer. I don't want
to have to write code to make an installer. Though, I appreciate the
option.
> What I am interested in, is an Inno Setup type tool, but one that supports
> TCL instead of Pascal scripting. I was under the impression that
> InstallJammer was such tool, but the latest version wouldn't even install on
> my PC, generating some TCL error, and crashing.
Well, InstallJammer is still in alpha and still has problems that
I'm trying to work out. The only way to do that is to have people like
you try it and report the bugs back to me. If you got an error while
installing, and it crashed, I'd LOVE to see the error. I can't fix
what I don't know about. So far, I've fixed every *reported* problem
with InstallJammer since the initial alpha release. Usually within a
day or so.
If I can fix your bug, and you can get it installed, I think you'll
find that InstallJammer has exactly what you're looking for, if not
maybe a little easier to use than InnoSetup.
Please send me an e-mail detailing the error that you got. I'm
desperately trying to track down bugs for the next release.
Damon