[Openmcl-devel] Re: Standalone binaries
helink at sandia.gov
Fri Apr 18 11:22:09 PDT 2003
I still don't understand why you or anyone would be particularly
concerned about distributing something as a single file; can you
clarify why you need to do this?
I don't remember the last time I saw an application that was a single,
self-contained file. (In any case, anything worth it's salt typically
comes with image files, default config files, a README or other
documentation, a license file, etc. etc. -- even for homework, the last
time I did any that the professor expected to be able to run, I still
had to include source code with the executable.)
You do understand that "installing openmcl" is *not* required, right?
Installing the application you wish to distribute *is* required
(whatever installing means, to me under unix it typically means "unpack
a tar file"), and at a minimum (for several lisp systems including
OpenMCL) that means two files, the vendor's lisp kernel and your app's
If you really, really, *really* want to distribute a single-file
program, you might see if you can find a lisp-to-C translator. There
are a couple out there, but I don't know how good they are or whether
they're even worth the trouble. If you go that route, Heaven help you.
My advice is learn to use tar and gzip -- everyone, everywhere, has the
capacity to unpack such a file and look in the resulting directory for
On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Taoufik Dachraoui wrote:
> I did not mean to run an executable on all different unix operating
> systems. By 'all unix systems' I meant 'all machines running the same
> unix operating system'. For example, the executable I create on my
> machine (Mac OS X) can run on any other Mac OS X machine (even if they
> do not have openmcl installed).
> Example, in C when you create an executable, you can take the
> executable and run it on any other machine (with the same OS) at a
> condition that all shared libraries used by the executable exists (eg.
> It is my fault, I was not clear in my statements. I hope that someone
> understood my concerns.
> SAVE-APPLICATION creates an image file, then we need to run dppccl
> with the image as an argument, so we cannot run the image in another
> system that do not have openmcl installed.
> I may be not precise in my comments and I ask you to bear with me and
> be patient, I am trying to learn as much as I can, and I find the mail
> group very interesting.
> On vendredi, avr 18, 2003, at 18:28 Africa/Tunis, Erann Gat wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Taoufik Dachraoui wrote:
>>> the JVM is allover the places, not openmcl.
>> Sorry, can't help you there. The world is the way it is.
>>> For this reason I am looking for a way
>>> to create an executable where all needed stuff is in it (excluding
>>> functions in standard unix libraries and system calls), so that my
>>> applications can run on any unix system (I hope)!
>> First, there is no way to create a binary executable (in any language)
>> that will "run on any unix system." If you doubt this, try to take
>> binary from one unix system (like Linux) and run it on a different
>> system (like Solaris).
>> Second, Gary already told you how to create a standalone executable
>> save-application. You complained that it was too big, and I
>> explained to
>> you why it had to be that big, and that the "fact" that apparently
>> self-contained C binaries appear small is really just an illusion.
>> The only way to achieve what you seem to want is to make openmcl as
>> ubiquitous as the JVM. That is a worthy goal, but very difficult to
>> achieve. You are probably better off coming up with another plan.
> Openmcl-devel mailing list
> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
Openmcl-devel mailing list
Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
More information about the Openmcl-devel