Hi Gabriel.

I have another question regarding the new system of CIL plugins. Prior to the current system, all I would have to do is distribute a compiled Cilly driver (with the license, of course), with my plugins as part of the compilation. Would it be possible to do so in the current system? It seems as though the user has to install the extra dependency of Findlib now, which I would like (as much as possible) to not have.


On 17 September 2013 14:32, Jonathan Kotker <advancedversion@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, sorry for the spam -- but it seems that due to differing versions of my code, I was accidentally running the version of the code that still had the batch file, so I spoke too soon. It turns out that I still need it. Oh well. :/

On 17 September 2013 14:18, Jonathan Kotker <advancedversion@gmail.com> wrote:
With the help of Alex Susu, I found out a way within Python to call the Cilly driver directly, without having to resort to a batch file, so it looks like you don't have to add it, Gabriel. :)

Thanks to everyone for all of the help.

On 16 September 2013 21:29, Jonathan Kotker <advancedversion@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Gabriel.

I ended up having to rewrite the batch script to call the Cilly driver from within the Python script. I'm still not sure why I have to do this -- I suspect that it is because the `subprocess` module -- which allows Python to make system calls -- employs the Windows shell to make its calls. In the Windows shell, I am unable to use either the UNIX absolute path or the Windows absolute path to the driver to run it. I have tried to prefix the call to the driver with the 'perl' command to be more explicit, in case the Windows shell was ignoring the shebang, but I seem to be running into issues specifying where perl should look to find the files that it needs (its PATH). The batch file seems to work best for my purposes.

It is a very singular use case though, so you don't have to add it to the CIL source code if it makes it messier. Thanks for your help! :)

On 16 September 2013 14:24, Gabriel Kerneis <gabriel@kerneis.info> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:59:40PM -0700, Jonathan Kotker wrote:
> Chances are that I may just have to write a replacement batch script for my
> own purposes.

For what it's worth, I got rid of cilly.bat and .exe extensions because they
seemed unnecessary on modern Windows versions. But if anyone has a good use case
for it, I'm not opposed to add it back (cilly.bat is only a minimalistic
one-liner anyway, so it wouldn't add much maintenance effort).