This question already has answers here:
How to make exe files from a node.js app?
(20 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Supposed I have written a Node.js application, and I now would like to distribute it. Of course, I want to make it easy for the user, hence I do not want him to install Node.js, run npm install and then manually type node app.js.
What I'd prefer was a single executable file, e.g. an .exe file on Windows.
How could I approach this?
I am aware of this thread, anyway this is only about Windows. How could I achieve this in a platform-independent manner? Any ideas? Best practices? ...?
The perfect solution was a "compiler" I can give a source folder to. The source folder contains the app itself in various .js files, the node_modules folder and some metadata, such as the package.json. The output should be binaries for various platforms, such as Windows, OS X and Linux.
Oh, and what's important: I do not want to make any changes to the source code, so calls to require with relative paths should still work, even if this relative path is now inside the packaged app.
Any ideas?
PS: I do not want the user to install Node.js independently, it should be included inside the executable as well.
Meanwhile I have found the (for me) perfect solution: nexe, which creates a single executable from a Node.js application including all of its modules.
It's the next best thing to an ideal solution.
First, we're talking about packaging a Node.js app for workshops, demos, etc. where it can be handy to have an app "just running" without the need for the end user to care about installation and dependencies.
You can try the following setup:
Get your apps source code
npm install all dependencies (via package.json) to the local node_modules directory. It is important to perform this step on each platform you want to support separately, in case of binary dependencies.
Copy the Node.js binary – node.exe on Windows, (probably) /usr/local/bin/node on OS X/Linux to your project's root folder. On OS X/Linux you can find the location of the Node.js binary with which node.
For Windows:
Create a self extracting archive, 7zip_extra supports a way to execute a command right after extraction, see: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/39048-how-to-make-a-7-zip-switchless-installer/.
For OS X/Linux:
You can use tools like makeself or unzipsfx (I don't know if this is compiled with CHEAP_SFX_AUTORUN defined by default).
These tools will extract the archive to a temporary directory, execute the given command (e.g. node app.js) and remove all files when finished.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the solution you're describing sounds a lot like Node-Webkit.
From the Git Page:
node-webkit is an app runtime based on Chromium and node.js. You can write native apps in HTML and JavaScript with node-webkit. It also lets you call Node.js modules directly from the DOM and enables a new way of writing native applications with all Web technologies.
These instructions specifically detail the creation of a single file app that a user can execute, and this portion describes the external dependencies.
I'm not sure if it's the exact solution, but it seems pretty close.
Hope it helps!
JXcore will allow you to turn any nodejs application into a single executable, including all dependencies, in either Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X.
Here is a link to the installer:
https://github.com/jxcore/jxcore-release
And here is a link to how to set it up:
http://jxcore.com/turn-node-applications-into-executables/
It is very easy to use and I have tested it in both Windows 8.1 and Ubuntu 14.04.
FYI: JXcore is a fork of NodeJS so it is 100% NodeJS compatible, with some extra features.
In addition to nexe, browserify can be used to bundle up all your dependencies as a single .js file. This does not bundle the actual node executable, just handles the javascript side. It too does not handle native modules. The command line options for pure node compilation would be browserify --output bundle.js --bare --dg false input.js.
There are a number of steps you have to go through to create an installer and it varies for each Operating System. For Example:
on Mac OS X you need to create a .pkg, there are instructions on how to do that here: https://coolaj86.com/articles/how-to-create-an-osx-pkg-installer.html
on Ubuntu Linux you need to create a .deb, there are instruction on how to do that here: https://coolaj86.com/articles/how-to-create-a-debian-installer.html
on Microsoft Windows you need to create a .exe or .msi, there are instruction on how do that using the innosetup installer here: https://coolaj86.com/articles/how-to-create-an-innosetup-installer.html
You could create a git repo and setup a link to the node git repo as a dependency. Then any user who clones the repo could also install node.
#git submodule [--quiet] add [-b branch] [-f|--force]
git submodule add /var/Node-repo.git common
You could easily package a script up to automatically clone the git repo you have hosted somewhere and "install" from one that one script file.
#!/bin/sh
#clone git repo
git clone your-repo.git
Related
I'm compiling/building a Node.js project into an .exe using Vercel's pkg but I'm trying to find where that executable file is during the program's runtime. To clarify, I want the Node.js program to know where the .exe file it is being run from is, to confirm it is correctly installed.
Context:
I cannot guarantee where the user has the .exe stored the first time they run it, but I want it to copy itself to the AppData folder so I can setup a Windows service from it, if it's not being run from there already. This in hopes of making a self-installing program, that doesn't require me to build an installed around it.
So on it's first run, I need the location of the .exe to be able to copy where I want. I might just have not picked it up, but I can't find an answer on either the pkg documentation or on another question here.
What I've Tried: I have tried process.cwd, process.pkg, __filename, __dirname and so on, but they all lead to the wrong thing, usually the snapshot folder of files.
When it comes to the main script it's as simple as finding it:
process.argv
From the Node.js documentation
Pkg from Vercel, is not an installer, its just a packager that will package node binaries and your code in a single exe.
You can follow this tutorial that shows how to make an installer it even enables you to set a path of where you want your exe to be installed
I have a .Net Core application which is to run on Ubuntu. With it I'm looking to distribute 2 .so files that the application depends upon. The app would load those libraries via a [DllImport("mylibrary")] attribute.
If I try to run my application as-is, it complains that it cannot find mylibrary. This is because the library doesn't exist in the search path. If I install the libraries via apt-get instead of distributing them, everything works (the libraries end up in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ which is part of my search path for libraries).
This isn't a very scalable solution. I want something that just "works" when running dotnet myapplication.dll without having to pre-install via apt-get (or otherwise) my .so files.
How can I get the library loader to work with my local .so files without requiring some extra step by the end user before running my application?
The idea of having the .Net Core application running some installation / bash commands upon startup to setup the environment sounded like a decent idea except it requires sudo. This isn't a deal-killer, but isn't terribly clean either.
Any ideas?
So some background, I'm installing Node on a host server, but it's a grid server not a server that's solely for my website.
The grid server doesn't have a root user/ administrative powers. So to install node I found this workaround: http://iantearle.com/blog/media-temple-grid-and-nodejs . It's a Linux Grid server, I've never used Linux so if someone could explain to me what the commands mean, especially: ./configure --prefix=~/opt/
Lastly I followed the steps but when I try to run the node command in the server it says node:command not found - which is why I'm trying to understand the steps. Thanks
To explain the process:
Configure
The configure script is responsible for getting ready to build the software on your specific system. It makes sure all of the dependencies for the rest of the build and install process are available, and finds out whatever it needs to know to use those dependencies.
Unix programs are often written in C, so we’ll usually need a C compiler to build them. In these cases the configure script will establish that your system does indeed have a C compiler, and find out what it’s called and where to find it.
Make
Once configure has done its job, we can invoke make to build the software. This runs a series of tasks defined in a Makefile to build the finished program from its source code.
The tarball you download usually doesn’t include a finished Makefile. Instead it comes with a template called Makefile.in and the configure script produces a customised Makefile specific to your system.
3.Make Install
Now that the software is built and ready to run, the files can be copied to their final destinations. The make install command will copy the built program, and its libraries and documentation, to the correct locations.
--prefix=~/opt/ -> will set the build directory to /home/yourhome/opt directory.
Now if you didnt get errors while doing those 3 steps explained above make sure you did the following:
nano ~/.bash_profile
export PATH=~/opt/bin:${PATH}
nano is a text editor and you are opening .bash_profile file with it.
you need to add export PATH=~/opt/bin:${PATH} in that file and save it using ctrl+x
Then restart your terminal.
Specified github repository for nodejs is outdated. use the following link instead.
git clone https://github.com/nodejs/node.git
P.S node:command not found usually happens when the program is not installed correctly or it's executable isnt in your terminal's PATH variable.
I have an application that relies on Qt, GDCM, and VTK, with the main build environment being Qt. All of these libraries are cross-platform and compile on Windows, Mac, and Linux. I need to deploy the application to Linux after deploying on Windows. The versions of vtk and gdcm I'm using are trunk versions from git (about a month old), more recent than what I can get apt-get on Ubuntu 11.04, which is my current (and only) Linux deployment target.
What is the accepted method for deploying an application that relies on these kinds of libraries?
Should I be statically linking here, to avoid LD_LIBRARY_PATH? I see conflicting reports on LD_LIBRARY_PATH; tutorials like this one suggest that it's the 'right way' to modify the library path to use shared libraries through system reboots. Others suggest that I should never set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. In the default version of GDCM, the installation already puts libraries into the /usr/local/lib directory, so those libraries get seen when I run ldd <my program>. VTK, on the other hand, puts its libraries into /usr/local/lib/vtk-5.9, which is not part of the LD_LIBRARY_PATH on most user's machines, and so is not found unless some change is made to the system. Copying the VTK files into '/usr/local/lib' does not allow 'ldd' to see the files.
So, how can I make my application see VTK to use the libraries?
On windows, deploying the dlls is very straightforward, because I can just include them in the installer, and the application finds them because they are in the local directory. That approach does not work in Linux, so I was going to have the users install Qt, GDCM, and VTK from whatever appropriate source and use the default locations, and then have the application point to those default locations. However, since VTK is putting things into a non-standard location, should I also expect users to modify LD_LIBRARY_PATH? Should I include the specific versions of the libraries that I want and then figure out how to make the executable look in the local directory for those libraries and ignore the ones it finds in the library path?
Every "serious" commercial application I have ever seen uses LD_LIBRARY_PATH. They invariably include a shell script that looks something like this:
#!/bin/sh
here="${0%/*}" # or you can use `dirname "$0"`
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$here"/lib:"$LD_LIBRARY_PATH"
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH
exec "$0".bin "$#"
They name this script something like .wrapper and create a directory tree that looks like this:
.wrapper
lib/ (directory full of .so files)
app1 -> .wrapper (symlink)
app1.bin (executable)
app2 -> .wrapper (symlink)
app2.bin (executable)
Now you can copy this whole tree to wherever you want, and you can run "/path/to/tree/app1" or "/path/to/tree/app2 --with --some --arguments" and it will work. So will putting /path/to/tree in your PATH.
Incidentally, this is also how Firefox and Chrome do it, more or less.
Whoever told you not to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH is full of it, IMHO.
Which system libraries you want to put in lib depends on which Linux versions you want to officially support.
Do not even think about static linking. The glibc developers do not like it, they do not care about supporting it, and they somehow manage to break it a little harder with every release.
Good luck.
In general, you're best off depending on the 'normal' versions of the libraries for whatever distribution you're targetting (and saying you don't support dists that don't support recent enough versions of the lib), but if you REALLY need to depend on a bleeding edge version of some shared lib, you can link your app with -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN' and then install a copy of the exact version you want in the same directory as your executable.
Note that if you use make, you'll need $$ in the makefile to get a single $ into the argument that is actually sent to the linker. The single qutoes are needed so the shell doesn't munge things...
Well, there are two options for deploying Linux application.
The correct way:
make a package for your app and for the libraries, if they are so special, that they can't be installed from standard repositories
There are two major package formats. RPM and DEB.
The easy way:
make a self-extract file that will install the "windows way" into /opt.
You can have libraries in the same directory as the executable, it's just not the preferred way.
I'm trying to "portablize" git, so I want to send the required executables from the make process of git to my hosted web server. Can I do that? Do you think the executables will work?
The way I do it is to:
get all Git dependencies (as listed in this Solaris package site, but this works for any Unix platform)
compile those dependencies with --prefix=/home/myuser and install them in the usr/local/lib of my home directory
then compile Git (still avoiding any reference to a system path like /usr/local/lib, but only using the lib and include within my homedir)
and install Git in the /home/myuser/git directory
I can then copy only /home/myuser/git and /home/myuser/usr/local (and $prefix/libexec/git-core as Jakub mentions in the comments) to any other similar server, knowing it will work in isolation from any existing system libraries.