in reply to Included scripts did not encrypt using pp

:) Scripts are files you list like pp ... foo.pl bar.pl baz.pl they end up in parfoo.exe/inc/script and they are crypto encrypted

If you just use pp... foo.pl only foo.pl is encrypted , the others end up in parfoo.exe/inc/lib/ and they are not encrypted

  • Comment on Re: Included scripts did not encrypt using pp (libs aren't scripts)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Included scripts did not encrypt using pp (libs aren't scripts)
by jowe (Sexton) on Dec 02, 2015 at 11:09 UTC
    This is exactly what I expected - but having more than 1 script specified like 
    pp .... foo.pl foo1.pl foo2.pl

    [download]
    pp will try to generate multiple executables and will fail.

    I was under the impression that the '-f'-option will decrypt ALL scripts automatically. Maybe I did not understand the pp-syntax in full detail and I overlooked something.

    Thanks - Jo
[reply]
[d/l]
      Let me add one remark:

      All additional pl-files (foo1.pl and foo2.pl) are subroutines from other applications. That's why there are separate files.

[reply]

        pp will try to generate multiple executables and will fail.

        I'm sure that it will not do that :)

        I was under the impression that the '-f'-option will decrypt ALL scripts automatically.

        You mean encrypt. Why should -f option encrypt something that is not considered a script and ends up in inc/lib instead of inc/scripts?

        OTOH, the -F option probably ought to encrypt any .pl files that end up in inc/lib -- you probably found a bug

        All additional pl-files (foo1.pl and foo2.pl) are subroutines from other applications. That's why there are separate files.

        Smart! Writing perl like its 1994 :)

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom