On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:55:22 +1100 "Brendan Simon (eTRIX)" <brendan.simon@etrix.com.au> wrote: > I take it this is perl variant of Py2App or Py2Exe -- correct ?? Looks like it. > Py2* actually wraps the python runtime, the python app (byte compiled), > the required python modules (byte compiled) and other required libraries > into a single 'executable' (a .app or .exe). > > Presuming PP does something similar (correct/ignore me if I'm wrong -- I > don't do perl), then each perl application/script would have it's own > perl runtime, modules and libraries. If you had lots of perl > apps/scripts then you would have lots of copies of the the perl runtime, > and many of the common modules and libraries. > > I that is correct, then would PP really be suitable for tightly embedded > systems ???? Seems a pretty basic flaw, I haven't had a close look at it yet. It seemed relatively new, so I was hoping it wouldn't be that restricted. > I find Py2App and Py2Exe suitable when you want to distribute > applications to end users that have varying host setups. You can > encapsulate all the dependent libraries and runtime progs into a single > app image and be confident that it will run on any machine, regardless > of what version of libraries and runtimes they may have installed on > their host. > The environment for an embedded system is a lot more controlled and is > generally not an issue. > > I think a light weight perl installation is probably a better option -- > either that or have binary or sh replacements for the perl scripts. > > Hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree. > Brendan. A lightweight perl interpreter has been the preferred option for a long time but hasn't actually arrived. Once I know how big the compiled code is, I'll know whether to spend any more time on it. Just wondered if anyone else had actually tried it yet. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpcTE73neqCR.pgp
Description: PGP signature