Module Static.pm not found when using perl packer

Bloehdian has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Module Static.pm not found when using perl packer by marto (Cardinal) on Jul 21, 2020 at 07:27 UTC
v1.049 does not include `PAR/StrippedPARL/Static.pm`. Do you have multiple versions of perl on the machine? Try reinstalling PAR and pp, Error "Can't locate PAR/StrippedPARL/Static.pm in @INC" while trying to use pp.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Module Static.pm not found when using perl packer by kcott (Archbishop) on Jul 21, 2020 at 08:48 UTC
G'day Bloehdian, The `PAR::StrippedPARL::Static` (and `PAR::StrippedPARL::Dynamic`) modules were last distributed with 1.010; they were absent from 1.011. In the Changes file, under '`1.037 2017-05-28`', you'll see: "Fail early when packing with a version of Perl that's different frome the one PAR::Packer was built with. Scenario: User has built and installed PAR::Packer ... then installs a newer version of Perl ..." As `pp` is now a module as well as a script, you can get version and location information about both of those, and equivalent information about `perl`, with these commands: `$ perl -E 'use pp; say $INC{"pp.pm"}; say $pp::VERSION;' $ which pp $ pp -V $ which perl $ perl -v` [download] I'd also check the shebang line in `program.pl`. I concur with the advice^[1,2] from both ++choroba¹ and ++marto². Your problem could be either; or a combination of both. If digging deeper (using the suggestions above) doesn't resolve your issue, post your results and we can look at it further. — Ken	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Module Static.pm not found when using perl packer by choroba (Cardinal) on Jul 21, 2020 at 07:00 UTC
Are you sure all the paths belong to the same perl version? Especially mixing /usr/local with /usr/lib64 and /usr/share seems suspicious. `map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]\|\|0,1}[\\|\|{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^ARGV,3]`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Module Static.pm not found when using perl packer by Bloehdian (Beadle) on Jul 23, 2020 at 14:35 UTC
Hello again, o.k., first with regard to the version stuff: [user@server bin]$ perl -E 'use pp; say $INC{"pp.pm"}; say $pp::VERSIO +N;' /usr/local/share/perl5/pp.pm 1.050 [user@server bin]$ which pp /usr/local/bin/pp [user@server bin]$ pp -V PAR Packager, version 1.050 (PAR version 1.016) Copyright 2002-2009 by Audrey Tang <cpan@audreyt.org> Neither this program nor the associated "parl" program impose any licensing restrictions on files generated by their execution, in accordance with the 8th article of the Artistic License: "Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always permitted provided that the use of this Package is embe +dded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial distribut +ion. Such use shall not be construed as a distribution of this Pack +age." Therefore, you are absolutely free to place any license on the resulti +ng executable, as long as the packed 3rd-party libraries are also availab +le under the Artistic License. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify i +t under the same terms as Perl itself. There is NO warranty; not even f +or MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. [user@server bin]$ which perl /usr/bin/perl [user@server bin]$ perl -vperl -E 'use pp; say $INC{"pp.pm"}; say $pp: +:VERSION;' This is perl, v5.10.1 () built for x86_64-linux-thread-multi Copyright 1987-2009, Larry Wall Perl may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License + or the GNU General Public License, which may be found in the Perl 5 source ki +t. Complete documentation for Perl, including FAQ lists, should be found +on this system using "man perl" or "perldoc perl". If you have access to + the Internet, point your browser at http://www.perl.org/, the Perl Home Pa +ge. [user@server bin]$ which pp /usr/local/bin/pp [user@server bin]$ pp -V PAR Packager, version 1.050 (PAR version 1.016) Copyright 2002-2009 by Audrey Tang <cpan@audreyt.org> Neither this program nor the associated "parl" program impose any licensing restrictions on files generated by their execution, in accordance with the 8th article of the Artistic License: "Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always permitted provided that the use of this Package is embe +dded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial distribut +ion. Such use shall not be construed as a distribution of this Pack +age." Therefore, you are absolutely free to place any license on the resulti +ng executable, as long as the packed 3rd-party libraries are also availab +le under the Artistic License. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify i +t under the same terms as Perl itself. There is NO warranty; not even f +or MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. [user@server bin]$ which perl /usr/bin/perl [user@server bin]$ perl -v This is perl, v5.10.1 () built for x86_64-linux-thread-multi Copyright 1987-2009, Larry Wall Perl may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License + or the GNU General Public License, which may be found in the Perl 5 source ki +t. Complete documentation for Perl, including FAQ lists, should be found +on this system using "man perl" or "perldoc perl". If you have access to + the Internet, point your browser at http://www.perl.org/, the Perl Home Pa +ge. [download] So far I have no indication that different Perl versions are mixed up on this box. BUT: I found something very interesting (and weird at the same time): program.pl is intended to run on windows and linux boxes as well. We use a Win 2012 server with Strawberry Perl 5.28.2 installed, and, guess, I find Static.pm installed in the directory C:\Strawberry\perl\site\lib\PAR\StrippedPARL, although PAR:Packer on this machine is of version 1.049. And `pp -B -o program.exe program.pl` works flawlessly on Windows 2012. It seems that the Strawberry guys bundled the "old" modules Static.pm (and Dynamic.pm) into this quite recent Perl (PAR::Packer) distribution. Really embarrassing! Any ideas how to proceed? (o.k., I will, just to experiment, copy over Static.pm and Dynamic.pm (from cpan) into the appropriate directory on the Linux machine, but I think this is not only quick (provided it works), but very very DIRTY :->) Totally different question: When I post my questions here I use an "ordinary" text editor to prepare the text, insert the <p>, </p>, etc. by hand (!) and copy it over to the text box on this site. Inserting the tags is time consuming. I guess that there is a much easier way. How do You do this?	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Module Static.pm not found when using perl packer by marto (Cardinal) on Jul 23, 2020 at 15:23 UTC
"It seems that the Strawberry guys bundled the "old" modules Static.pm (and Dynamic.pm) into this quite recent Perl (PAR::Packer) distribution. Really embarrassing!" For Strawberry Perl 5.28.2 from the msi: `marto@Marto-Desktop:~/Downloads/msi/Strawberry$ find . -name "Static.p +m" ./perl/vendor/lib/Mojolicious/Static.pm marto@Marto-Desktop:~/Downloads/msi/Strawberry` [download] From the 'portable': `marto@Marto-Desktop:~/portable$ find . -name "Static.pm" ./perl/vendor/lib/Mojolicious/Static.pm marto@Marto-Desktop:~/portable$` [download] From the 'zip' distro: `marto@Marto-Desktop:~/zip$ find . -name "Static.pm" ./perl/vendor/lib/Mojolicious/Static.pm marto@Marto-Desktop:~/zip$` [download] I can't see anything to back up this claim.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Module Static.pm not found when using perl packer by hippo (Archbishop) on Jul 23, 2020 at 14:53 UTC
Inserting the tags is time consuming. I guess that there is a much easier way. How do You do this? I use a node template. You can set one up in your Signature Settings. Or you could configure your editor to use a template. Or you could use an HTML-aware editor. Or you could use a post-processor (in Perl, of course) to wrap every paragraph outside code blocks in p tags. Or ... so many alternatives! 🦛 Sig test because I changed it while I was there. :-)	[reply]