I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that there is likely to be a better
design for your goal than this. However, I will refrain from offering
suggestions until you ask. :-)
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Bagdevi wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot David and Ron,
> I am aware of this way of bundling of mul
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Bagdevi wrote:
> system ("perl a.pl");
>
There are several things wrong with this:
- You assume that a.pl is in your current working directory - that doesn't
have
to be the case even in the unpacked case.
In the packed case a.pl etc will be located in a temp
Thanks a lot David and Ron,
I am aware of this way of bundling of multiple and running them by hard
linking, but my issue is bit different.
I have several script, one is master script and the others are called from
inside the master script.
one can imagine the structure as follows.
master.pl
---
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:10 AM, David Mertens
wrote:
> Bagdevi,
>
> If you rename the par-packed executable to "b.exe", then running it as "b"
> should invoke the "b.pl" script. That is, the perl script that gets
> invoked depends on the name of the executable itself. You can achieve the
> same
22, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Bagdevi wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> I am trying to make a group of perl script, bundle up together to act
> inside one executable. I know I can bundle up multiple perl script together
> as follows.
>
> pp -o a.exe a.pl b.pl c.pl
>
> I can unzip the
Dear Group,
I am trying to make a group of perl script, bundle up together to act
inside one executable. I know I can bundle up multiple perl script together
as follows.
pp -o a.exe a.pl b.pl c.pl
I can unzip the a.exe and see that a.pl, b.pl and c.pl are inside the
script/ folder.
My problem
