I'm new to Python, but I have set up an python script for searching some specific Values in 2 different excel sheets printing out matches (in excel).
Problem is, that our work machines are heavily locked down and without admin privileges, we can't really install anything (we can download though). Is there any version of Python that is Windows 7 compatible that will run standalone without requiring any sort of installer?
I have tried pyInstaller, but the problem is that in my script we need PANDAS.
And there is no possibility to pip install pandas to our local machines. All is blocked. ("pip install pandas" is not possible. I did the code with Anaconda)
So my question is: how can I set up a file for my coworkers, who have no permission to download pandas?
Can I set up an exe file (all use windows 7/10) in my private computer where pandas is already installed and forward it to the workers?
It should be very easy for them to use--> double click for executing the python script
Thanks in advance for any advice.
You can also use pyinstaller which personally I find the easiest to use. It can bundle executables for both Linux and Windows, but it must be run on that architecture that you wish to have executable for, i.e. if you want to have Linux executable the pyinstaller command with your code must be run on Linux OS of some kind.
More here: https://www.pyinstaller.org/
This is old so you may already have found a solution but this might help others.
Python by default is an interpreted language. This means that compiling it into an .exe file is impossible.
However, using some modules it is indeed possible to convert a .py script into a windows executable.
You can try py2exe.
py2exe is a Python Distutils extension which converts Python scripts
into executable Windows programs, able to run without requiring a
Python installation.
They have a tutorial here.
I need libv8-3.14 to run some R packages on linux, but I don't have root access/sudo access on the linux computer I'm using so I'd like to install an external folder instance of libv8-3.14. I've seen R packages reference this as external as CDFLAG="folder/v8-3.14" so I know it is possible.
I'm new(ish) to linux but I've installed external libraries before with tar.gz files which then have a configure file in them, which I set the external folder with ./configure --prefix==/folder/loc, but the only downloads I can find of libv8 are .git (which I can't get to work either).
How can I install an libv8-3.14 to a folder and install so I can set:
export PATH=$PATH:/path/to/install/
and
export `LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:/path/to/install/`
I had the exact same problem. In case somebody in the future comes across this post, I will leave my suggestions and how it worked out in the end. Also, all credits go to an experienced colleague of mine.
The most sure thing to do is to consult IT, or someone who has already had the same problem, there is usually a workaround these issues.
A way you can do it yourself:
Create an anaconda environment, you can name it 'V8' or something (make sure the environment is based on the latest python version, or recent enough for r-v8).
activate it
install the conda version of the V8 R interface with conda install -c conda-forge r-v8
That's it. Whenever you need V8, fire up your environment beforehand, and it should be A-OK.
Further advice: If you run into errors when installing r-v8, it may be a good idea to update your conda and all the packages. However, depending on your conda version conda update conda and conda upgrade --all MAY BREAK your conda installation, so be careful. (For further information on this problem, see the endless complaints of people in this issue: https://github.com/conda/conda/issues/8920).
V8 doesn't use autotools, so it has no ./configure. In fact, it provides no installation facilities at all, because it is meant for embedding, not installing.
What I would try is to download the Ubuntu package (guessing from your other question, you are on Ubuntu, right?) for the right architecture from https://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/libv8-3.14.5, and extracting it manually. .deb files are just ZIP archives.
As a side note, there's no point in setting PATH, because libv8, being a library, provides no executables. LD_LIBRARY_PATH is all you need.
This question already has answers here:
Create a single executable from a Python project [closed]
(3 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I'm building a Python application and don't want to force my clients to install Python and modules.
So, is there a way to compile a Python script to be a standalone executable?
You can use PyInstaller to package Python programs as standalone executables. It works on Windows, Linux, and Mac.
PyInstaller Quickstart
Install PyInstaller from PyPI:
pip install pyinstaller
Go to your program’s directory and run:
pyinstaller yourprogram.py
This will generate the bundle in a subdirectory called dist.
pyinstaller -F yourprogram.py
Adding -F (or --onefile) parameter will pack everything into single "exe".
pyinstaller -F --paths=<your_path>\Lib\site-packages yourprogram.py
running into "ImportError" you might consider side-packages.
pip install pynput==1.6.8
still runing in Import-Erorr - try to downgrade pyinstaller - see Getting error when using pynput with pyinstaller
For a more detailed walkthrough, see the manual.
You can use py2exe as already answered and use Cython to convert your key .py files in .pyc, C compiled files, like .dll in Windows and .so on Linux.
It is much harder to revert than common .pyo and .pyc files (and also gain in performance!).
You might wish to investigate Nuitka. It takes Python source code and converts it in to C++ API calls. Then it compiles into an executable binary (ELF on Linux). It has been around for a few years now and supports a wide range of Python versions.
You will probably also get a performance improvement if you use it. It is recommended.
Yes, it is possible to compile Python scripts into standalone executables.
PyInstaller can be used to convert Python programs into stand-alone executables, under Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, and AIX. It is one of the recommended converters.
py2exe converts Python scripts into only executable on the Windows platform.
Cython is a static compiler for both the Python programming language and the extended Cython programming language.
I would like to compile some useful information about creating standalone files on Windows using Python 2.7.
I have used py2exe and it works, but I had some problems.
It has shown some problems for creating single files in Windows 64 bits: Using bundle_files = 1 with py2exe is not working;
It is necessary to create a setup.py file for it to work. http://www.py2exe.org/index.cgi/Tutorial#Step2;
I have had problems with dependencies that you have to solve by importing packages in the setup file;
I was not able to make it work together with PyQt.
This last reason made me try PyInstaller http://www.pyinstaller.org/.
In my opinion, it is much better because:
It is easier to use.
I suggest creating a .bat file with the following lines for example (pyinstaller.exe must be in in the Windows path):
pyinstaller.exe --onefile MyCode.py
You can create a single file, among other options (https://pyinstaller.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage.html#options).
I had only one problem using PyInstaller and multiprocessing package that was solved by using this recipe: https://github.com/pyinstaller/pyinstaller/wiki/Recipe-Multiprocessing.
So, I think that, at least for python 2.7, a better and simpler option is PyInstaller.
And a third option is cx_Freeze, which is cross-platform.
pyinstaller yourfile.py -F --onefile
This creates a standalone EXE file on Windows.
Important note 1: The EXE file will be generated in a folder named 'dist'.
Important note 2: Do not forget --onefile flag
You can install PyInstaller using pip install PyInstaller
NOTE: In rare cases there are hidden dependencies...so if you run the EXE file and get missing library error (win32timezone in the example below) then use something like this:
pyinstaller --hiddenimport win32timezone -F "Backup Program.py"
I like PyInstaller - especially the "windowed" variant:
pyinstaller --onefile --windowed myscript.py
It will create one single *.exe file in a distination/folder.
You may like py2exe. You'll also find information in there for doing it on Linux.
Use py2exe.... use the below set up files:
from distutils.core import setup
import py2exe
from distutils.filelist import findall
import matplotlib
setup(
console = ['PlotMemInfo.py'],
options = {
'py2exe': {
'packages': ['matplotlib'],
'dll_excludes': ['libgdk-win32-2.0-0.dll',
'libgobject-2.0-0.dll',
'libgdk_pixbuf-2.0-0.dll']
}
},
data_files = matplotlib.get_py2exe_datafiles()
)
I also recommend PyInstaller for better backward compatibility such as Python 2.3 - 2.7.
For py2exe, you have to have Python 2.6.
For Python 3.2 scripts, the only choice is cx_Freeze. Build it from sources; otherwise it won't work.
For Python 2.x I suggest PyInstaller as it can package a Python program in a single executable, unlike cx_Freeze which outputs also libraries.
Since it seems to be missing from the current list of answers, I think it is worth mentioning that the standard library includes a zipapp module that can be used for this purpose. Its basic usage is just compressing a bunch of Python files into a zip file with extension .pyz than can be directly executed as python myapp.pyz, but you can also make a self-contained package from a requirements.txt file:
$ python -m pip install -r requirements.txt --target myapp
$ python -m zipapp -p "interpreter" myapp
Where interpreter can be something like /usr/bin/env python (see Specifying the Interpreter).
Usually, the generated .pyz / .pyzw file should be executable, in Unix because it gets marked as such and in Windows because Python installation usually registers those extensions. However, it is relatively easy to make a Windows executable that should work as long as the user has python3.dll in the path.
If you don't want to require the end user to install Python, you can distribute the application along with the embeddable Python package.
py2exe will make the EXE file you want, but you need to have the same version of MSVCR90.dll on the machine you're going to use your new EXE file.
See Tutorial for more information.
You can find the list of distribution utilities listed at Distribution Utilities.
I use bbfreeze and it has been working very well (yet to have Python 3 support though).
Not exactly a packaging of the Python code, but there is now also Grumpy from Google, which transpiles the code to Go.
It doesn't support the Python C API, so it may not work for all projects.
Using PyInstaller, I found a better method using shortcut to the .exe rather than making --onefile. Anyway, there are probably some data files around and if you're running a site-based app then your program depends on HTML, JavaScript, and CSS files too. There isn't any point in moving all these files somewhere... Instead what if we move the working path up?
Make a shortcut to the EXE file, move it at top and set the target and start-in paths as specified, to have relative paths going to dist\folder:
Target: %windir%\system32\cmd.exe /c start dist\web_wrapper\web_wrapper.exe
Start in: "%windir%\system32\cmd.exe /c start dist\web_wrapper\"
We can rename the shortcut to anything, so renaming to "GTFS-Manager".
Now when I double-click the shortcut, it's as if I python-ran the file! I found this approach better than the --onefile one as:
In onefile's case, there's a problem with a .dll missing for the Windows 7 OS which needs some prior installation, etc. Yawn. With the usual build with multiple files, no such issues.
All the files that my Python script uses (it's deploying a tornado web server and needs a whole freakin' website worth of files to be there!) don't need to be moved anywhere: I simply create the shortcut at top.
I can actually use this exact same folder on Ubuntu (run python3 myfile.py) and Windows (double-click the shortcut).
I don't need to bother with the overly complicated hacking of .spec file to include data files, etc.
Oh, remember to delete off the build folder after building. It will save on size.
Use Cython to convert to C, compile, and link with GCC.
Another could be, make the core functions in C (the ones you want to make hard to reverse), compile them and use Boost.Python to import the compiled code (plus you get a much faster code execution). Then use any tool mentioned to distribute.
I'm told that PyRun is also an option. It currently supports Linux, FreeBSD and Mac OS X.
I installed the luarocks package on Linux Mint, and afterwards installed a couple of rocks such as sudo luarocks install telescope, but when running a script via lua script.lua, require cannot find the module.
Meta: Doing this Q&A style, because while questions that answer this exist, none seem to be generically titled or easily findable, and I hope that I can help someone with this.
In this specific case, the problem was simply that on my distribution, the default Lua version installed was at the time of writing this 5.2, whereas the LuaRocks package was built for 5.1, meaning that Lua 5.2 could not find the rocks due to using different paths for modules.
The solution to the problem was downloading the LuaRocks source code from its github repository, and compiling it for 5.2
./configure --lua-version=5.2
make build
sudo make install
To make sure I can also install packages for LuaJIT, which as of the moment uses 5.1 libs, I have also executed the above lines with lua-version=5.1 beforehand (if I executed them after, the default luarocks command would point at the 5.1 build.
To build LuaRocks, you need liblua5.2-dev and/or liblua5.1-dev
The solution for me is this.
I try
eval "$(luarocks path)"
and it works.
Hope it works for others.
We've been using protocol buffers, and are generating the c++ and python files with protoc, and the c# files with protobuf-csharp-port. At the moment these are done separately, the c++ and python from linux and the c# from windows. We'd like to have one script generate all of these, running in linux.
To do this I'm trying to run ProtoGen.exe with mono, but it's not producing any output. The following command runs, but produces no cs files, and no errors.
mono ../cs/Packages/Google.ProtocolBuffers/tools/ProtoGen.exe --protoc_dir=/usr/local/bin/ ./subdir/simple_types.proto
I've got a feeling that I'm missing something simple.
I don't think I've tried running protoc from ProtoGen.exe on Linux. I'm surprised that it doesn't have any errors, but we can definitely look into that. (If you fancy raising an issue, that would be really helpful - or I'll do it when I get the chance.)
For the moment, I suggest that you run protoc first, using --descriptor_set_out to produce a binary (protobuf) version of the .proto file. That's what ProtoGen.exe is trying to do first, and failing by the sounds of it.
Once you've got the binary version of your message descriptor (I'd call it simple_types.pb), you can run ProtoGen.exe on that. It's been a while since I've done this, but I believe you should be able to just run
mono ../cs/Packages/Google.ProtocolBuffers/tools/ProtoGen.exe ./subdir/simple_types.pb
... and it should magically work.
As a horrible alternative, you could try symlinking protoc.exe to protoc in your binary directory. Fundamentally I suspect that's what's going wrong :)
my script
protoc "--proto_path=$SRC_DIR" "--descriptor_set_out=x.protobin" --include_imports $SRC_DIR/x.proto
mono $PRJ_HOME/Google.ProtocolBuffers.2.4.1.521/tools/ProtoGen.exe -line_break=Unix x.protobin
protoc and mono were installed via distrib package manager :
# archlinux
pacman -S protobuf mono