In my work it's often to distribute scripts to other departments in a company, contractors etc. If a script is a single .rb / .php / .jar / .py file it's easy: all i need is to somehow supply this file to a person and he just double clicks it to execute. But if script is complex (big), writing it as a single file is not very good from programmer's point of view - so complex scripts are created as a number of files with something like "main" file that starts a script. And where is a problem with distributing such scripts to non-programmers: they need to copy an entire folder containing all files, locate the main file and double click it. This is much harder to non-programmers than just double clicking a single file :(. Really.
PHP, Java and Python offers a solution for such distribution problems. I can just pack all files into ".phar", ".jar" or ".egg" file and push this file to end users - double clicking it will execute a script (or entering it's name in a console if script is command-line). Same simplicity as with single script file.
Does something like this exists for Ruby? I have checked the 'gem' mechanics that seems to me very common to python 'egg' - but it seems that 'gems' are not suited to be executed as a 'script', they are for installation only :(.
Any hints or ideas?
You could use JRuby in combination with Rawr:
http://rawr.rubyforge.org/
To quote the docs: "With Rawr, a simple, pre-generated configuration file turns your code into an executable jar, a .exe for Windows, and a .app for OS X."
Related
I am trying to compile a bash project into a distributable binary. I tried shc, and it worked, except all my source statements were broken. I have numerous source statements to keep the code base cleaner, but they are broken when compiled with shc. How can I compile down my bash project so that instead of having a bunch of .sh files, the end user can just have one single file?
Shc is an obfuscator, not a compiler. At the end of the day, it still invokes /bin/sh or whatever, and feeds it your original script. It has not a slightest idea what your script actually does. If it needs an additional file to source, you have to supply it at an appropriate location.
You may want to investigate things like SHAR. Build anarchive, then compile it with shc if you want.
It sounds like all you're missing is a facility to expand all your source statements. That should be fairly easy to write if your codebase is fairly consistent in its use of those statements: just write a script to expand them inline and away you go.
Alternatively, just put all your scripts into a single Zip file or tarball and tell the user to extract the contents of that one file, or if even that is too much I'm sure you can imagine a way to encode the zipped contents of all the non-main files into a giant comment at the bottom of the main file, and have it extract what it needs before proceeding.
Or, you know, use the appropriate installer for your system. Build an RPM for RHEL or a Debian package or a Windows MSI or whatever....
Is their a way to zip a file without VB Script.I got a lot of examples on web to zip file or folder using vbs but i want to do it in a single BAT file.
Yes and no. There is no built in way to do this inside windows. You can use a external application like vbscript, a exe file like 7zip, rar, lots of resources can do this. Since windows is application poor when it comes to command lines is not really surprising. But no you do not need the VB Script for anything.
Just not so easy out of the box. Maybe makecab could do it for you? As a general rule you have a hard constraint in your question. A single BAT file which in general can not do almost anything without the support of hundreds of preinstalled or commonly installed other applications.
Could you specify a the constraints a bit better. Tel WHY you need this particular constraint? And what does it mean as even most of the bat command you use require more than one file.
I have a dozen of selenium webdriver scripts written in Ruby and I have used both rubyscript2exe and ocra gems in an attempt to end up with a 'bundled' executable but to no avail. Problem is, my scripts are grabbing test data from Excel files; and this is causing havoc when trying to create the executable.
It works fine on the machine which has the original excel file but when taken home away from its native path it 'll just refuse to run. Do I need to declare my paths in my code in a relative way and not explicitly? Is there a command in Ruby like 'require' but for an Excel file for example?
I will be grateful if anyone knows a way to make a ruby executable (or even an installer/application builder) which will somehow include the Excel files running in parallel with the script.
* Resolved *
Admins you can close this one if you want.
It was pretty simple but couldn't figure it out on the first place. If you want to included additional non ruby files in your final executable you can use the line below..:
ocra yourscript.rb test.xls docs\documentantion.doc excel\additional.xls
Once you package an exe using Ocra the files are locked inside it, and if they're intended to be immutable you may as well store the data in the script and write it out directly from there. If you absolutely can't do it without an excel file you'd might also consider creating one via the script.
If you're using an external excel file which is distributed with the exe, then you'd be best off referencing the excel file's path relative to the script (Dir.pwd). Also, wouldn't it be more efficient to gather the data from a delimited text file rather than excel?
I work on software that requires access to DLLs, usually wants environment variables set a certain way, and can take command line parameters. I'm generally opposed to setting/modifying system-wide environment variables for the purpose of launching these apps, since I might want to use different dependencies (different dlls), etc. and I don't want to accidentally get the wrong DLL loaded.
Up until now, I've been generating the visual studio .vcproj.user files and matching batch files from cmake ( see here for my script ) that extends the path to include the path to my dlls, sets any other environment variables as needed, and launches the application, forwarding all the command line arguments. (I do the same on Linux, but it's simpler because of RPATH). When we want to launch with a command line argument that wasn't just a file we could drop on the batch file, what we did is copy the batch file and edit the command to add our argument. (It's all GUI applications, but config files/flags can be passed on the command line)
This has become quite a hassle for me and my colleagues, and we end up with a ton of batch files, named similarly and difficult to maintain. It's not really a great interface for starting but there's a lot of apps we either use or develop that are like this, so it's a common task.
My question is this: I'd like a nicer way to configure dynamic library search paths, process-local environment variables, working directory, executable, and arguments for starting a program than hand-editing a batch file every time. I've done some digging to try to find one, but haven't been successful - "launcher" tends to bring me to "search-as-you-type" tools for frequently-used apps, and "command line argument" tends to find recommendations to use batch files. (It's not a windows-specific issue, either, but the dynamic library path stuff is less problematic during the code/compile/run cycle)
I've made a quick mockup of what I'm envisioning: it seems like the kind of thing that has to exist somewhere. Do you know of a tool similar to this (preferably cross-platform, and open source is even better)? It doesn't need all bells and whistles I put in the mockup, but that's what I'd build if I had time to build it myself. Thanks!
I've developed a GUI for some build scripts, and am now in the process of deploying it. As the script will be deployed to a number of different machines at various points, I need to use the standard format of directories that the team use.
The GUI consists of a ".fig" file that contains the visual definition of the UI, and a m-script that defines the functionality. I need to locate these two in "fig/" and "m/" folders respectively, but I can't figure out how to. I first searched for an include statement of some kind in the m-script, as when I Run it on its own, the error message in the command window states that the ".fig" file can't be found, but there doesn't seem to be a reference to the ".fig" file anywhere, I assume that it's inferred as both files have the same name but a different extension.
I fear that Matlab's GUI system requires that both ".m" and ".fig" files are in the same location, but this will be an inelegant solution that I'd rather not go for if I can avoid it.
The next thing I'm going to try is to call a script that copies the fig file from the other directory to the same location as the m-script, when it is executed, then deletes that copy once the script exits, which again seems a clunky solution, but will allow me to adhere to the team's organisation conventions.
Does anyone else know of an undocumented means of specifying the relative location of a GUI ".fig" file?
You can export the GUIDE-generated GUI as a single .m file. Check out this blog post: GUIDE GUIs in All One File.
I'm not sure if this is a new feature, or one of those things that has always been there...