I would like to create a Windows Installer of my Python module (as explained here https://docs.python.org/2/distutils/builtdist.html) without including the sources, meaning that the installer should only embed the Python bytecode.
I followed the solution explained here https://stackoverflow.com/a/3444346/343201 and it only works for ZIP distributions. In other words, if I create a ZIP built distribution, I manage to exclude all sources and export only bytecode (.pyc). On the other hand, if I create a MSI/WININST built distribution, it will only contain sources (.py).
I looked at the output of bdist_wininst and looks like when creating a Windows installer, only source files are exported, bytecode is ignored. Why? Is there a way to enforce the installer to embed only bytecode and no source files?
Thanks
You can use py2exe, though it uses your script files. It will make a .exe file and the source code stays locked.
You can try every way around. Head over here and try http://www.py2exe.org/old/
Related
I have a small program I am trying pass around to friends. It includes nonstandard libraries like the PIL and mtTkinter packages, and thus usually requires them to be included in the pythonpath.
Is there a way I can generate the the .pyc file so that all required code for the program to run is included in the file, and not required to be installed on my friends computers. I want this to be able to work between different OS like windows, mac, and linux.
Does it have to a pyc file? I use pyinstaller to package programs and share. The first time I used it, I couldn't believe how easy it is.
Here's a link to the portion on packaging for multiple operating systems: https://pyinstaller.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage.html#supporting-multiple-operating-systems
I've downloaded the python 3.6.6 source from here...
https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-366/
...and followed the instruction on how to build on Windows (run ../PCbuild/build.bat). Python compiles and seems to be working (funny and scary: while fetching externals, it actually downloads python-3.7.0 as a dependency... :/ ). However, it looks like the build is somehow 'in place', and the binaries end up in some sub-folder of the source (../PCbuild/amd64/python.exe). This means I'm left with source and compiled code mixed up instead of some clean/lean and deployable package.
can I somehow provide '--prefix=/target/build/path' to define a target location to build to, like I would on linux?
is there a way of removing all src files/folders and leave only the required files/folders (../lib, ../include, etc...).
Or in general, is there a way of making the build process more behave like on linux?
Thanks for your help,
Max
The build.bat from PCBuild is intended for developers, that is, for testing purposes. What you want is under \Tools\msi\buildrelease.bat. This creates a subdirectory under \PCBuild\ that places all msi, cab and exe files ready for later installation. According to the readme, there doesn't seem to be an option to pack all those files in a single .exe file, like all installers eventually do, but another option is under \Tools\msi\build.bat which does have an option for packing (namely build.bat --pack). "But", the readme does state that the buildrelease.bat should be used for an official release. The advantage of doing so is that Pyhton would be optimized using PGO to your own hardware. I am also trying to compile from source using this method but I am having an issue with a recurring error (and other ones):
PGO run did not succeed (no python36!*.pgc files) and there is no data to merge [E:\RepoGiT\3.6\PCbuild\pythoncore.vcxproj]
so, if you do go this route, and find this, or other errors, please send the bug report to python's bug tracker webpage. And better yet, if you find errors and their solution, please report back here!
I've read the Python documentation chapter explaining how to embed the Python interpreter in a C/C++ application. Also, I've read that you can install Python modules either in a system-wide fashion, or locally to a given user.
But let's suppose my C/C++ application will use some Python modules such as SymPy, Matplotlib, and other related modules. And let's suppose end users of my application won't have any kind of Python installation in their machines.
This means that my application needs to ship with "pseudo-installed" modules, inside its data directories (just like the application has a folder for icons and other resources, it will need to have a directory for Python modules).
Another requirement is that the absolute path of my application installation isn't fixed: the user can "drag" the application bundle to another directory and it will run fine there (it already works this way but that's prior to embedding Python in it, and I wish it continues being this way after embedding Python).
I guess my question could be expressed more concisely as "how can I use Python without installing Python, neither system-wide, nor user-wide?"
There are various ways you could attempt to do this, but none of them are general solutions. From the (docs):
5.5. Embedding Python in C++
It is also possible to embed Python in a C++ program; precisely how this is done will depend on the details of the C++ system used; in general you will need to write the main program in C++, and use the C++ compiler to compile and link your program. There is no need to recompile Python itself using C++.
This is the shortest section in the document, and is roughly equivalent to: 'left as an exercise for the reader`. I do not believe you will find any straight forward solutions.
Use pyinstaller to gather the pieces:
This means that my application needs to ship with "pseudo-installed" modules, inside its data directories (just like the application has a folder for icons and other resources, it will need to have a directory for Python modules).
If I needed to tackle this problem, I would use pyinstaller as a base. (Disclosure: I am an occasional contributer). One of the major functions of pyinstaller is to gather up all of the needed resources for a python program. In onedir mode, all of the things needed to let the program run are gathered into one directory.
You could include this tool into your make system, and have it place all of the needed pieces into your python data directory in your build tree.
Whenever I build an exe with cx_Freeze and Python I get a bunch of extra stuff like the Library.zip and all the .dll files. Is there a way I can make it just one executable file that I can just send over to someone and have them run without having to give them all the extra files also? Python 3.4. Thank you!
Not really1. You're best option for a single-file distribution is probably to create an installer.
You can however append the library.zip to your executable:
params['options'] = {
'append_script_to_exe': True,
'create_shared_zip': False,
...
}
setup(**params)
But this only reduces the number of files by 1.
There are two reasons why you can't do this. The first is that some modules are not "zip safe" (those that contain data files that are read with open()). The second, and more important reason, is that Python requires various DLLs in order to run, and Windows's dynamic linker doesn't know how to find and load those DLLs if they're inside a zip file.
See: http://cx-freeze.readthedocs.org/en/latest/faq.html#single-file-executables
1 If you're really ambitious, you could theoretically create an entirely static build of Python (statically link all of the library source code, and the C runtimes, etc.), and do the same with any C modules that you might be using. That plus appending the Library.zip file to the exe might give you a single-file distribution.
However, tracking down and building all those dependencies would be a very large effort.
Yes, If your on windows this method works.
Run ->> iexpress
Follow the instructions.
This will compile all the files into on exe but first you need to create the exe using cx_freeze then browse to the directory in iexpress and it will do the rest.
We've got a (Windows) application, with which we distribute an entire Python installation (including several 3rd-party modules that we use), so we have consistency and so we don't need to install everything separately. This works pretty well, but the application is pretty huge.
Obviously, we don't use everything available in the runtime. I'd like to trim down the runtime to only include what we really need.
I plan on trying out py2exe, but I'd like to try and find another solution that will just help me remove the unneeded parts of the Python runtime.
One trick I've learned while trimming down .py files to ship: Delete all the .pyc files in the standard library, then run your application throughly (that is, enough to be sure all the Python modules it needs will be loaded). If you examine the standard library directories, there will be .pyc files for all the modules that were actually used. .py files without .pyc are ones that you don't need.
Both py2exe and pyinstaller (NOTE: for the latter use the SVN version, the released one is VERY long in the tooth;-) do their "trimming" via modulefinder, the standard library module for finding all modules used by a given Python script; you can of course use the latter yourself to identify all needed modules, if you don't trust pyinstaller or py2exe to do it properly and automatically on your behalf.
This py2exe page on compression suggests using UPX to compress any DLLs or .pyd files (which are actually just DLLs, still). Obviously this doesn't help in trimming out unneeded modules, but it can/will trim down the size of your distribution, if that's a large concern.