Thank you for that.
I did not use the -x switch because I assumed that if the .exe created launches and runs without any error messages, then it's fine.
Anyway, I now ran pp with -x and the problem went away. I can't see this mentioned in the bug reports you linked, so I'm guessing you know this from personal experience...?
I digged around in the .exe files generated by pp, and found that the MANIFEST files are different. Specifically, the one made with -x contains the following entries, which are missing from the one made without -x:
lib/Encode/Byte.pm
lib/auto/Encode/Byte/Byte.bs
lib/auto/Encode/Byte/Byte.dll
lib/sitecustomize.pl
Obviously, this must be the explanation. I guess the lesson is to always use -x. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] [select] |
Yes, this is why you had the initial problem, pp -x executes the code in an attempt to determine additional run time dependencies. This isn't a bug, it won't be in the reports mentioned, though it's documented in pp. See also PAR::FAQ and PAR::Tutorial.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
I can't see this mentioned in the bug reports you linked, so I'm guessing you know this from personal experience...? Yup, 99/100 PAR/pp questions are solved with -x, the rest are solved with -l, the rest are bugs :)
I linked the first bug reports I could find, didn't seem important to check if they mention pp -x
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
I linked the first bug reports I could find, didn't seem important to check if they mention pp -x Because , with older versions of Tk, pp -x won't help, so you need latest Tk and pp -x
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Perhaps pp should display a warning when it's run without -x along the lines of "Attention, running without -x may generate an executable that runs without error messages but does not function fully correctly. -x is always strongly recommended." It would cut down on questions and bug reports.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |