I have begun to use GTK(2), and I find that the workings of the library to be very good, but the documentation sucks.
I want to upgrade to GTK3, but it seems I need to install something called packman. That is a difficult philosophical step for me. Why can't I simply download a zip file(s) somewhere?
The documentation uses a lot of words without saying much, and the downloads want you to download stuff OTHER then gtk in order to get gtk. Why don't they simply have a GTK package and let me decide if I need all the other stuff.
Also, I have been reading on forums, even if I do the packman stuff, it still isn't enough for C::B.
Anyway, that is mostly a rant, what I'd really like is a suggestion to an alternative to GTK+.
Here are some of my requirements...
#1, It must NOT be an interpreter. Using Code::Blocks and C, I get an exe file and I'd like to continue that way.
#2 It must be programmable using C. I'd really like to stick wiith C::B, but I guess in a pinch I can use Eclipse (although that is another nightmare I won't get into here.)
#3 GTK requires a bunch of DLL's to be shipped along with the exe file. It would be ideal if the entire target could be included in the single exe without having to rely on external dll's or .net framework or other external stuff.
Any suggestions woule be apreaciated.
Thanks, Mark.
You best bet is to give a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_widget_toolkits#High-level_widget_toolkits
If you wan to stick to C and not C++, then Qt is out.
The other that stands out is EFL. I've never used it myself, but it has good reputation and probably your best bet if you want to quit GTK+ and stick to C. However I don't know how easy it is to use it on Windows.
Now about GTK+:
Also, I have been reading on forums, even if I do the packman stuff, it still isn't enough for C::B.
There are people here that use GTK+ with Code::Blocks, so I don't get what kind of problem you're referring to.
Then your other problems:
The documentation uses a lot of words without saying much
Examples?
the downloads want you to download stuff OTHER then gtk in order to get gtk
What you don't get is that GTK+ is more that just the libgtk library. It has dependencies on a lot of other libraries, like glib, cairo, pango, etc. In the past there used to be a bundle or installer to have that installed on Windows, but people would mess up on setting the environment up based on their needs and give up. As the GTK+ manpower for the Windows platform is limited, the GTK+ team delegated the distribution of the GTK+ binaries to the MSYS2 project.
MSYS2 is a popular project that provides a lot of open source software already built for Windows, and solves the problem of building and installing dependencies by hand for the user. This step is made to make installation simpler, not harder. In a handful of commands you have GTK+ and all its dependencies installed for your platform, and can start coding your app. Another command and you have python and the python GTK+ bindings installed and can get started. Want to depend on another popular library? Chances are MSYS already provides it.
Windows has been known for decades to be bad on dependency management. If package management wasn't a a pain point on Windows, then stuff like chocolatey or conan wouldn't exist.
Your philosophical reluctance is merely that: philosophical. Sure GTK+ on Windows isn't perfect. With MSYS2 you will get packages built with gcc so the debug symbols are not compatible with the Visual Studio debugger and you will need to use gdb instead. But on your other question you say you use gcc and loathe Visual Studio, so this should not be a blocker to you.
GTK requires a bunch of DLL's to be shipped along with the exe file. It would be ideal if the entire target could be included in the single exe without having to rely on external dll's or .net framework or other external stuff.
This is not possible for the moment as static compilation of GTK+ isn't supported. The redistribution of an app, however, isn't as easy as I'd like it to be. The best way on Windows to redistribute your app while using MSYS2 is to create a pacman package for your app, listing its dependencies, then call pacman to install your app on an empty directory and tell it to install all your dependencies there too. The result will be a directory that you can redistribute, with a self-contained installation of your app and all its dependencies, GTK+ included.
Related
I am using cygwin64 installed in C:/cygwin64, with eclipse and GTK2.0. Although include <gtk/gtk.h> is in the source, and C:/cygwin64/usr/include/gtk-2.0 is in the include path (I added it), many things in a gtk2 simple example are still not recognized, such as GtkWidget, gpointer, and GTK_WINDOW_TOPLEVEL. I got the whole of GTK2 via cygwin setup. I was and am reluctant to download all of GTK2 separately and install it on top of cygwin, since wouldn't it result in multiple locations for the same thing? How may I resolve it? Would separate download and installation not result in redundancy, and possible alternate or even conflicting aliases?
A secondary question: I am confused about the general library requirements. Cygwin is a package which runs on Windows, but offers a Linux/unix-like interface. This argues that the libraries should be .a and .so. But since it is Windows, I also see a lot of .dll within C:\cygwin64. Normally, I would expect that only cygwin proper would contain .dll files and all other code would be Linux code. Yet that seems not to be the case. Often, I see both .dll and .so libraries with the same base name. Which is it, dll, or .so and .a, etc?
A tertiary question relating to the one above involves the main gtk2 library. The projected usage is not developing these programs, but just using GTK2 in applications. The documentation says to use glib, but there are many. Some are glib2.so, others glib2, or cygglib2.0.0.dll. Which of these is appropriate? or some other library? How do I set the exclipse LIBRARY path? (Since I unexpectedly encountered the problem with gtk.h, I am trying to anticipate and head off the corresponding problem with the library implementing gtk2.)
Our VB6 application relies heavily on the use of scrrun.dll (Windows Scripting Host). Until a year ago we used to deploy this dll with our installer. Since the Windows Scripitng Host is supposed to be part of Windows we removed the dll from the installation package. However, now and then surface customers who have a non functional scrrun.dll on their system and we have to help them reinstall or reregister it.
So, should we put the scrrun.dll back in the installation package? Should we perform some check on installation? Or should we just live with the fact that we have to provide hands on support to some of our customers to set their systems right?
Don't try to deploy these libraries as part of a normal setup.
Microsoft Scripting Runtime must be installed through the use of a
self-extracting .exe file. For versions of Scripting Runtime mentioned
at the beginning of this article, the only way to distribute it is to
use the complete self extracting .exe file located at the following
locations...
It is possible that some users employ an older anti-malware suite, many of which tried to disable scripting. It is more likely though that some users have managed to break their Windows installation, either themselves or by using applications improperly packaged to try to include these libraries - and blindly remove them from the system on uninstall (cough, cough - Inno).
The libraries involved have been tailored code for some time. This is why the ancient .CAB file was "recalled" long ago. There is no single copy of them intended to run on any random version of Windows, and there are no redist packs for any modern version of Windows. The correct fix is a system restore or repair install.
While this can't be blamed directly on InnoSetup because it is the result of poorly authored scripts it is frustrating enough and common enough that I won't cry when its signature is added to anti-malware suites. There are just too many poorly written examples loose in the wild copy/pasted by too many people.
I spend plenty of time undoing the damage caused by uninstalls of these applications and have grown quite weary of it. Where possible I use isolated assemblies now in self-defense, which helps a lot. Windows File Protection is getting better about preventing abusive action for system files too.
But in general you are much better off avoiding any dependency on scripting tools in an application. There isn't very much that they can do as well as straight code anyway, though it may take some time to write alternative logic.
This is probably a multi-part question. Background: we have a native (c++) library that is part of our application and we have managed to use SWIG to generate a perl wrapper for this library. We'd now like to distribute this perl module as part of our application.
My first question - how should I distribute this module? Is there a standard way to package pre-built perl modules? I know there is ppm for the ActiveState distro, but I also need to distribute this for linux systems. I'm not even sure what files are required to distribute, but I'm guessing it's the pm and so files, at a minimum.
My next question - it looks like I might need to build my module project for each version of perl that I want to support. How do I know which perl versions I should build for? Are there any standard guidelines... or better yet, a way to build a package that will work with multiple versions of perl?
Sorry if my questions make no sense - I'm fairly new to the compiled module aspects of perl.
CLARIFICATION: the underlying compiled source is proprietary (closed source), so I can't just ship source code and the appropriate make artifacts for the package. Wish I could, but it's not going to happen in this case. Thus, I need a sane scheme for packaging prebuilt binary files for my module.
I look after DBD::Informix, one of the Perl Database Driver modules that works with the DBI (Perl Database Interface). The underlying libraries used to connect to IBM Informix Dynamic Server (IDS) are proprietary, but the DBD::Informix code itself is not. I distribute that code on CPAN, just the same as any other Perl module. People can download that source, and (provided that they have the Informix ClientSDK installed on their machine - and Perl and DBI and so on), they can build DBD::Informix to work with their installed Perl.
I would strongly counsel that you arrange that your Perl interface code be made available in source form, even though the library that it interfaces to is proprietary. This allows people to install the code with any version of Perl they have - without requiring you to deal with inconsistencies.
If you still want to provide binary support, you are going to have to work out which platforms you want to support, and build the module with the standard version of Perl on each such platform. This gets messy. You need access to an instance of each machine. Granted, virtual machines make this easier, but it is still fiddly and the number of platforms and versions only grows. But you still need to support people who don't use the standard version of Perl on their machine - that's why the Perl wrapper interface needs to be provided in source form.
DISCLAIMER: I have next to no experience creating binary packages that can easily be installed. Therefore, I am making this post CW to make it easier for others to add their advice.
You should make the distribution available in source form so it can be compiled on each system tailored according to the specifics of that system. I really like Module::Build for that purpose.
For ActiveState users on Windows, you probably want to have four or six PPMs based on whether you want to support 5.6. Package both 32-bit and 64-bit versions for each of 5.6, 5.8 and 5.10. Use the version of mingw you can install using ppm to compile the modules to preserve binary compatibility.
Another option is to use PAR::Packer and distribute your application in a PAR archive. In that context, PAR::WebStart might be useful although I have not tried it. I have had success with PAR archives in the past, though.
I have several scripts that I supply to users as tools for their engineering projects. These scripts contain a lot of duplicated code. I want to extract this code and maintain it in a set of modules. However, in order for this to work, the users would have to install these modules. I don't want to have to tell my users to "make install", etc., as I'm sure none of them would have the patience for that.
I understand that one option is to package everything together with PAR, but ideally the user would be able to open up && edit these scripts if they need to, just like they can now. They also need to be able to move them to whatever directory they want, and I don't want them to have to move a bunch of library files as well.
Is it possible to make a double-click file that installs some bundled Perl modules?
I distribute my script as modules, and then use the normal CPAN toolchain to install them. See my articles Scripts as Modules and Automating Script Distributions with scriptdist. Once you have them in a conventional module distribution, you can install them from their current directory with cpan:
% cpan . # install from distribution in the current directory
Depending on how complex your situation is, you might want to create a DPAN, which is a private version of CPAN that your CPAN tools can draw from. You put all of your private modules there, point your CPAN tools at it, and everything happens as it does with a real CPAN mirror. You never have to share your work though.
yeah package with either PAR or Shipwright (not sure about binaries). Also use scandeps.pl along the way.
If the users are using systems with a packaging system (dpkg, cygwin, etc.), consider using that.
If you don't mind spending some green, one of the better bet is Perl Dev Kit from Activestate.
From their own description of the product,
Develop and deploy your Perl programs
to anyone on any platform with
PerlApp's new cross-platform
wrapping.
Deliver code as
executables or as Windows Services,
ActiveX components, .NET assemblies
or in the System Tray.
Easily create
MSI files using Perl code.
You may also consider using sparrow - scripts distribution system. Sparrow plays nice with Perl as it writen on it. It supports CPAN modules dependencies via carton tool.
PS Disclaimer - I am the tool author
It seems that most of the installers for Perl are centered around installing Perl modules, not applications. Things like ExtUtils::MakeMaker and Module::Build are very well suited for modules, but require some additional work for Web Apps.
Ideally it would be nice to be able to do the following after checking out the source from the repository:
Have missing dependencies detected
Download and install dependencies from CPAN
Run a command to "Build" the source into a final state (perform any source parsing or configuration necessary for the local environment).
Run a command to install the built files into the appropriate locations. Not only the perl modules, but also things like template (.tt) files, and CGI scripts, JS and image files that should be web-accessible.
Make sure proper permissions are set on installed files (and SELinux context if necessary).
Right now we have a system based on Module::Build that does most of this. The work was done by done by my co-worker who was learning to use Module::Build at the time, and we'd like some advice on generalizing our solution, since it's fairly app-specific right now. In particular, our system requires us to install dependencies by hand (although it does detect them).
Is there any particular system you've used that's been particularly successful? Do you have to write an installer based on Module::Build or ExtUtils::MakeMaker that's particular to your application, or is something more general available?
EDIT: To answer brian's questions below:
We can log into the machines
We do not have root access to the machines
The machines are all (ostensibly) identical builds of RHEL5 with SELinux enabled
Currently, the people installing the machines are only programmers from our group, and our source is not available to the general public. However, it's conceivable our source could eventually be installed on someone else's machines in our organization, to be installed by their programmers or systems people.
We install by checking out from the repository, though we'd like to have the option of using a distributed archive (see above).
The answer suggesting RPM is definitely a good one. Using your system's package manager can definitely make your life easier. However, it might mean you also need to package up a bunch of other Perl modules.
You might also take a look at Shipwright. This is a Perl-based tool for packaging up an app and all its Perl module dependencies. It's early days yet, but it looks promising.
As far as installing dependencies, it wouldn't be hard to simply package up a bunch of tarballs and then have you Module::Build-based solution install them. You should take a look at pip, which makes installing a module from a tarball quite trivial. You could package this with your code base and simply call it from your own installer to handle the deps.
I question whether relying on CPAN is a good idea. The CPAN shell always fetches the latest version of a distro, rather than a specific version. If you're interested in ensuring repeatable installs, it's not the right tool.
What are your limitations for installing web apps? Can you log into the machine? Are all of the machines running the same thing? Are the people installing the web apps co-workers or random people from the general public? Are the people installing this sysadmins, programmers, web managers, or something else? Do you install by distributed an archive or checking out from source control?
For most of my stuff, which involves sysadmins familiar with Perl installing in control environments, I just use MakeMaker. It's easy to get it to do all the things you listed if you know a little about MakeMaker. If you want to know more about that, ask a another question. ;) Module::Build is just as easy, though, and the way to go if you don't already like using MakeMaker.
Module::Build would be a good way to go to handle lots of different situations if the people are moderately clueful about the command line and installing software. You'll have a lot of flexibility with Module::Build, but also a bit more work. And, the cpan tool (which comes with Perl), can install from the current directory and handle dependencies for you. Just tell it to install the current directory:
$ cpan .
If you only have to install on a single platorm, you'll probably have an easier time making a package in the native format. You could even have Module::Build make that package for you so the developers have the flexibility of Module::Build, but the installers have the ease of the native process. Sticking with Module::Build also means that you could create different packages for different platforms from a single build tool.
If the people installing the web application really have no idea about command lines, CPAN, and other things, you'll probably want to use a packager and installer that doesn't scare them or make them think about what is going on, and can accurately report problems to you automatically.
As Dave points out, using a real CPAN mirror always gets you the latest version of a module, but you can also make your own "fake" CPAN mirror with exactly the distributions you want and have the normal CPAN tools install from that. For our customers, we make "CPAN on a CD" (although thumb drives are good now too). With a simple "run me" script everything gets installed in exactly the versions they need. See, for instance, my Making my own CPAN talk if you're interested in that. Again, consider the audience when you think about that. It's not something you'd hand to the general public.
Good luck, :)
I'd recommend seriously considering a package system such as RPM to do this. Even if you're running on Windows I'd consider RPM and cygwin to do the installation. You could even set up a yum or apt repository to deliver the packages to remote systems.
If you're looking for a general installer for customers running any number of OSes and distros, then the problem becomes much harder.
Take a look at PAR.
Jonathan Rockway as a small section on using this with Catalyst in his book.