Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Adam Hughes
Hi all,

I'm curious as to what is the best/easiest way to package ETS-based programs into .exe, .dmg or other exectuable formats.  When releasing scientific programs for general use, it is reasonable to have users merely install Python on their machines and run programs through the terminal; however, I anticipate most general users will be unwilling to install EPD/ETS on top of a preexisting build.  They will probably tinker with it for a few minutes, get frustrated and move on to the next best thing.  To avoid this, I'd like to know what the best way is to package an ETS-based program into a standalone script. 

With some searching online, this guide seems to be the most recently published information.  Is this still the best/only way to do it?  If so, are there any plans to simplify the process?  For some reason this feels overly complicated for a potentially ubiquitous task.

Thanks.


_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Eraldo Pomponi
Hi Adam, 

I also tried to package one of my ETS app and, after some trials, I got it run. 
This is the original message that I posted here: 

Hope it is useful ... 

Cheers,
Eraldo 

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I'm curious as to what is the best/easiest way to package ETS-based programs into .exe, .dmg or other exectuable formats.  When releasing scientific programs for general use, it is reasonable to have users merely install Python on their machines and run programs through the terminal; however, I anticipate most general users will be unwilling to install EPD/ETS on top of a preexisting build.  They will probably tinker with it for a few minutes, get frustrated and move on to the next best thing.  To avoid this, I'd like to know what the best way is to package an ETS-based program into a standalone script. 

With some searching online, this guide seems to be the most recently published information.  Is this still the best/only way to do it?  If so, are there any plans to simplify the process?  For some reason this feels overly complicated for a potentially ubiquitous task.

Thanks.


_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Adam Hughes
Thanks Eraldo.  That's useful information, I'll try bbfreeze as well. 

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Eraldo Pomponi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Adam, 

I also tried to package one of my ETS app and, after some trials, I got it run. 
This is the original message that I posted here: 

Hope it is useful ... 

Cheers,
Eraldo 

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I'm curious as to what is the best/easiest way to package ETS-based programs into .exe, .dmg or other exectuable formats.  When releasing scientific programs for general use, it is reasonable to have users merely install Python on their machines and run programs through the terminal; however, I anticipate most general users will be unwilling to install EPD/ETS on top of a preexisting build.  They will probably tinker with it for a few minutes, get frustrated and move on to the next best thing.  To avoid this, I'd like to know what the best way is to package an ETS-based program into a standalone script. 

With some searching online, this guide seems to be the most recently published information.  Is this still the best/only way to do it?  If so, are there any plans to simplify the process?  For some reason this feels overly complicated for a potentially ubiquitous task.

Thanks.


_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Thomas Lecocq
Hi all,

FYI, I don't know if it's the best way, but my solution (see geophysique.be mentionned below) still works OK with the latest git pull ..

Cheers,

thom


Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:20:17 -0400
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Enthought-Dev] Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Thanks Eraldo.  That's useful information, I'll try bbfreeze as well. 

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Eraldo Pomponi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Adam, 

I also tried to package one of my ETS app and, after some trials, I got it run. 
This is the original message that I posted here: 

Hope it is useful ... 

Cheers,
Eraldo 

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I'm curious as to what is the best/easiest way to package ETS-based programs into .exe, .dmg or other exectuable formats.  When releasing scientific programs for general use, it is reasonable to have users merely install Python on their machines and run programs through the terminal; however, I anticipate most general users will be unwilling to install EPD/ETS on top of a preexisting build.  They will probably tinker with it for a few minutes, get frustrated and move on to the next best thing.  To avoid this, I'd like to know what the best way is to package an ETS-based program into a standalone script. 

With some searching online, this guide seems to be the most recently published information.  Is this still the best/only way to do it?  If so, are there any plans to simplify the process?  For some reason this feels overly complicated for a potentially ubiquitous task.

Thanks.


_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________ Enthought-Dev mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev

_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Adam Hughes
Thanks guys. Eraldo can you email me the source files to the info you shared.  I am on my phone so if they are in the post and I am not seeing them I'm sorry. Thomas thanks again for your solution. I will try it but fear every application I ever make will become a game of trial and error withou some official helper tool.  Also there is no is independent binary Creator is there?

On Monday, June 11, 2012, Thomas ' <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> FYI, I don't know if it's the best way, but my solution (see geophysique.be mentionned below) still works OK with the latest git pull ..
>
> Cheers,
>
> thom
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:20:17 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Enthought-Dev] Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs
>
> Thanks Eraldo.  That's useful information, I'll try bbfreeze as well. 
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Eraldo Pomponi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam, 
> I also tried to package one of my ETS app and, after some trials, I got it run. 
> This is the original message that I posted here: 
> https://mail.enthought.com/pipermail/enthought-dev/2011-October/029933.html
> Hope it is useful ... 
> Cheers,
> Eraldo 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm curious as to what is the best/easiest way to package ETS-based programs into .exe, .dmg or other exectuable formats.  When releasing scientific programs for general use, it is reasonable to have users merely install Python on their machines and run programs through the terminal; however, I anticipate most general users will be unwilling to install EPD/ETS on top of a preexisting build.  They will probably tinker with it for a few minutes, get frustrated and move on to the next best thing.  To avoid this, I'd like to know what the best way is to package an ETS-based program into a standalone script. 
>
> With some searching online, this guide seems to be the most recently published information.  Is this still the best/only way to do it?  If so, are there any plans to simplify the process?  For some reason this feels overly complicated for a potentially ubiquitous task.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Enthought-Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Enthought-Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Enthought-Dev mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Eraldo Pomponi
Dear Adam, 

All the information necessary to work with bb-freeze are included (inline) in the post I linked in the previous email. 
You need to add few lines in your "main" script (run.py if it is, for instance, the attractor task 
example) to collect all the packages necessary to your application that are not "discovered" directly by bb-freeze.  You must import missed dependencies directly in your code (the method __dependencies_for_freezing()  or what name you like) and re-run bb-freeze. 
I haven't used it recently but at that time it was working fine for me.

Cheers,
Eraldo 

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks guys. Eraldo can you email me the source files to the info you shared.  I am on my phone so if they are in the post and I am not seeing them I'm sorry. Thomas thanks again for your solution. I will try it but fear every application I ever make will become a game of trial and error withou some official helper tool.  Also there is no is independent binary Creator is there?


On Monday, June 11, 2012, Thomas ' <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> FYI, I don't know if it's the best way, but my solution (see geophysique.be mentionned below) still works OK with the latest git pull ..
>
> Cheers,
>
> thom
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:20:17 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Enthought-Dev] Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs
>
> Thanks Eraldo.  That's useful information, I'll try bbfreeze as well. 
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Eraldo Pomponi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam, 
> I also tried to package one of my ETS app and, after some trials, I got it run. 
> This is the original message that I posted here: 
> https://mail.enthought.com/pipermail/enthought-dev/2011-October/029933.html
> Hope it is useful ... 
> Cheers,
> Eraldo 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm curious as to what is the best/easiest way to package ETS-based programs into .exe, .dmg or other exectuable formats.  When releasing scientific programs for general use, it is reasonable to have users merely install Python on their machines and run programs through the terminal; however, I anticipate most general users will be unwilling to install EPD/ETS on top of a preexisting build.  They will probably tinker with it for a few minutes, get frustrated and move on to the next best thing.  To avoid this, I'd like to know what the best way is to package an ETS-based program into a standalone script. 
>
> With some searching online, this guide seems to be the most recently published information.  Is this still the best/only way to do it?  If so, are there any plans to simplify the process?  For some reason this feels overly complicated for a potentially ubiquitous task.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Enthought-Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Enthought-Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Enthought-Dev mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev

_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs

Adam Hughes
Thanks eraldo, I'll try to get it working tomorrow and let you know if I'm successful.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Eraldo Pomponi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Adam, 

All the information necessary to work with bb-freeze are included (inline) in the post I linked in the previous email. 
You need to add few lines in your "main" script (run.py if it is, for instance, the attractor task 
example) to collect all the packages necessary to your application that are not "discovered" directly by bb-freeze.  You must import missed dependencies directly in your code (the method __dependencies_for_freezing()  or what name you like) and re-run bb-freeze. 
I haven't used it recently but at that time it was working fine for me.

Cheers,
Eraldo 

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks guys. Eraldo can you email me the source files to the info you shared.  I am on my phone so if they are in the post and I am not seeing them I'm sorry. Thomas thanks again for your solution. I will try it but fear every application I ever make will become a game of trial and error withou some official helper tool.  Also there is no is independent binary Creator is there?


On Monday, June 11, 2012, Thomas ' <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> FYI, I don't know if it's the best way, but my solution (see geophysique.be mentionned below) still works OK with the latest git pull ..
>
> Cheers,
>
> thom
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:20:17 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Enthought-Dev] Current state of standalone/executable ETS programs
>
> Thanks Eraldo.  That's useful information, I'll try bbfreeze as well. 
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Eraldo Pomponi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam, 
> I also tried to package one of my ETS app and, after some trials, I got it run. 
> This is the original message that I posted here: 
> https://mail.enthought.com/pipermail/enthought-dev/2011-October/029933.html
> Hope it is useful ... 
> Cheers,
> Eraldo 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Adam Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm curious as to what is the best/easiest way to package ETS-based programs into .exe, .dmg or other exectuable formats.  When releasing scientific programs for general use, it is reasonable to have users merely install Python on their machines and run programs through the terminal; however, I anticipate most general users will be unwilling to install EPD/ETS on top of a preexisting build.  They will probably tinker with it for a few minutes, get frustrated and move on to the next best thing.  To avoid this, I'd like to know what the best way is to package an ETS-based program into a standalone script. 
>
> With some searching online, this guide seems to be the most recently published information.  Is this still the best/only way to do it?  If so, are there any plans to simplify the process?  For some reason this feels overly complicated for a potentially ubiquitous task.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Enthought-Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Enthought-Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Enthought-Dev mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev

_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev



_______________________________________________
Enthought-Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.enthought.com/mailman/listinfo/enthought-dev