librelist archives

« back to archive

Executables and packaging

Executables and packaging

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-04-10 @ 01:19
I have been writing with shoes for a bit, and enjoy the development, but
find the packaging a bit problematic.

With red shoes (Policeman), I can make a windows executable only with
difficulty. Running shoes -p creates a target file, although the packaging
app itself doesn't close properly.
Often, the executable is not made from the code you explicitly refer to,
because something gets mixed up with the tmp files. Only by deleting all
the relevant tmp files can I guarantee the correct executable will be made.

I always create an executable that includes shoes, which is needed for any
independent app to have a serious existence. For some reason, the
executable that gets created takes about 15 seconds to load. And of course,
a windows shoes app will often crash if the user brings other windows come
into focus - but this instability will probably get fixed over time.

Id be interested in anyone elses experience with packaging windows
executables.

Should I be looking at the various other colour shoes for more stable
Java/JRuby package options?

Re: [shoes] Executables and packaging

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2012-04-10 @ 03:56
Ooh, my favorite topic!


On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 02:19 +0100, David Eastman wrote:
> I have been writing with shoes for a bit, and enjoy the development,
> but find the packaging a bit problematic.
> 
> With red shoes (Policeman), I can make a windows executable only with
> difficulty. Running shoes -p creates a target file, although the
> packaging app itself doesn't close properly. 

That is a "feature" so you can package one platform at a time if you
want to. ;^)  You can't exit the $shoes -m either without the window
manager gadgets, either. You could modify pack.rb to do it your way.

> Often, the executable is not made from the code you explicitly refer
> to, because something gets mixed up with the tmp files. Only by
> deleting all the relevant tmp files can I guarantee the correct
> executable will be made.

That deserves a bug report at the github if you can describe it more. 

> 
> I always create an executable that includes shoes, which is needed for
> any independent app to have a serious existence. For some reason, the
> executable that gets created takes about 15 seconds to load. And of
> course, a windows shoes app will often crash if the user brings other
> windows come into focus - but this instability will probably get fixed
> over time. 

Packaging involves downloading the Shoes exe and rebuilding it into a
new exe with your script included. The package download does take a
while but it shouldn't take 15 secs for the end user to run. It should
be more like 2 minutes to click through all the installer questions.
Unless you already have Shoes installed in which case Windows has to
create another set of menu entries, diddle with the registry to handle
duplicate Shoes.exe. Subsequent launchings should be reasonably fast. 

When I test on Windows, I delete every copy of Shoes that Windows will
show me before I download my newer script/shoes combo.  If that is your
temp file complaint, it is valid but we are small and MSFT does things
it's way. If the download Shoes if needed option worked better it would
be the better choice for packaging.

The window focus and crash issue is known but not well understood and
seems to vary depending on which Windows and Shoes version you are
running. Details would be helpful.


> 
> Id be interested in anyone elses experience with packaging windows
> executables.
> 
> Should I be looking at the various other colour shoes for more stable
> Java/JRuby package options? 

Currently, the alternate Shoes colours don't package an exe/dmg/run. It
is a viciously hard problem to solve. That's why Red Shoes with all its
warts is different.

By all means investigate them, and think about what your end user needs
to do to get a running Green/Purple/Brown Shoes app installed. Depending
on your target audience and skills, the extra work to manually install
ruby & gtk or jruby & swt before launching your script/app (packaged as
a .shy/.gsy) might be acceptable.

regards,
--Cecil

Re: [shoes] Executables and packaging

From:
J. Kaiden
Date:
2012-04-10 @ 11:52
hi David,

  an option that i've had some success with is putting a green_shoes app
into a gem, which can then install green_shoes and any other gem
dependencies you might have when being installed itself.

 - j




On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> wrote:

> Ooh, my favorite topic!
>
>
> On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 02:19 +0100, David Eastman wrote:
> > I have been writing with shoes for a bit, and enjoy the development,
> > but find the packaging a bit problematic.
> >
> > With red shoes (Policeman), I can make a windows executable only with
> > difficulty. Running shoes -p creates a target file, although the
> > packaging app itself doesn't close properly.
>
> That is a "feature" so you can package one platform at a time if you
> want to. ;^)  You can't exit the $shoes -m either without the window
> manager gadgets, either. You could modify pack.rb to do it your way.
>
> > Often, the executable is not made from the code you explicitly refer
> > to, because something gets mixed up with the tmp files. Only by
> > deleting all the relevant tmp files can I guarantee the correct
> > executable will be made.
>
> That deserves a bug report at the github if you can describe it more.
>
> >
> > I always create an executable that includes shoes, which is needed for
> > any independent app to have a serious existence. For some reason, the
> > executable that gets created takes about 15 seconds to load. And of
> > course, a windows shoes app will often crash if the user brings other
> > windows come into focus - but this instability will probably get fixed
> > over time.
>
> Packaging involves downloading the Shoes exe and rebuilding it into a
> new exe with your script included. The package download does take a
> while but it shouldn't take 15 secs for the end user to run. It should
> be more like 2 minutes to click through all the installer questions.
> Unless you already have Shoes installed in which case Windows has to
> create another set of menu entries, diddle with the registry to handle
> duplicate Shoes.exe. Subsequent launchings should be reasonably fast.
>
> When I test on Windows, I delete every copy of Shoes that Windows will
> show me before I download my newer script/shoes combo.  If that is your
> temp file complaint, it is valid but we are small and MSFT does things
> it's way. If the download Shoes if needed option worked better it would
> be the better choice for packaging.
>
> The window focus and crash issue is known but not well understood and
> seems to vary depending on which Windows and Shoes version you are
> running. Details would be helpful.
>
>
> >
> > Id be interested in anyone elses experience with packaging windows
> > executables.
> >
> > Should I be looking at the various other colour shoes for more stable
> > Java/JRuby package options?
>
> Currently, the alternate Shoes colours don't package an exe/dmg/run. It
> is a viciously hard problem to solve. That's why Red Shoes with all its
> warts is different.
>
> By all means investigate them, and think about what your end user needs
> to do to get a running Green/Purple/Brown Shoes app installed. Depending
> on your target audience and skills, the extra work to manually install
> ruby & gtk or jruby & swt before launching your script/app (packaged as
> a .shy/.gsy) might be acceptable.
>
> regards,
> --Cecil
>
>
>

Re: [shoes] Executables and packaging

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-04-12 @ 01:27
Thx for these answers guys, awesome. Especially Cecil.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM, J. Kaiden <jakekaiden@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi David,
>
>   an option that i've had some success with is putting a green_shoes app
> into a gem, which can then install green_shoes and any other gem
> dependencies you might have when being installed itself.
>
>  - j
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Ooh, my favorite topic!
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 02:19 +0100, David Eastman wrote:
>> > I have been writing with shoes for a bit, and enjoy the development,
>> > but find the packaging a bit problematic.
>> >
>> > With red shoes (Policeman), I can make a windows executable only with
>> > difficulty. Running shoes -p creates a target file, although the
>> > packaging app itself doesn't close properly.
>>
>> That is a "feature" so you can package one platform at a time if you
>> want to. ;^)  You can't exit the $shoes -m either without the window
>> manager gadgets, either. You could modify pack.rb to do it your way.
>>
>> > Often, the executable is not made from the code you explicitly refer
>> > to, because something gets mixed up with the tmp files. Only by
>> > deleting all the relevant tmp files can I guarantee the correct
>> > executable will be made.
>>
>> That deserves a bug report at the github if you can describe it more.
>>
>> >
>> > I always create an executable that includes shoes, which is needed for
>> > any independent app to have a serious existence. For some reason, the
>> > executable that gets created takes about 15 seconds to load. And of
>> > course, a windows shoes app will often crash if the user brings other
>> > windows come into focus - but this instability will probably get fixed
>> > over time.
>>
>> Packaging involves downloading the Shoes exe and rebuilding it into a
>> new exe with your script included. The package download does take a
>> while but it shouldn't take 15 secs for the end user to run. It should
>> be more like 2 minutes to click through all the installer questions.
>> Unless you already have Shoes installed in which case Windows has to
>> create another set of menu entries, diddle with the registry to handle
>> duplicate Shoes.exe. Subsequent launchings should be reasonably fast.
>>
>> When I test on Windows, I delete every copy of Shoes that Windows will
>> show me before I download my newer script/shoes combo.  If that is your
>> temp file complaint, it is valid but we are small and MSFT does things
>> it's way. If the download Shoes if needed option worked better it would
>> be the better choice for packaging.
>>
>> The window focus and crash issue is known but not well understood and
>> seems to vary depending on which Windows and Shoes version you are
>> running. Details would be helpful.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Id be interested in anyone elses experience with packaging windows
>> > executables.
>> >
>> > Should I be looking at the various other colour shoes for more stable
>> > Java/JRuby package options?
>>
>> Currently, the alternate Shoes colours don't package an exe/dmg/run. It
>> is a viciously hard problem to solve. That's why Red Shoes with all its
>> warts is different.
>>
>> By all means investigate them, and think about what your end user needs
>> to do to get a running Green/Purple/Brown Shoes app installed. Depending
>> on your target audience and skills, the extra work to manually install
>> ruby & gtk or jruby & swt before launching your script/app (packaged as
>> a .shy/.gsy) might be acceptable.
>>
>> regards,
>> --Cecil
>>
>>
>>
>