by [Dennis LaBelle] homepage at http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/ The freewrap program turns TCL/TK scripts into single-file binary executable programs. There are various forms of this application - from wrapping [pure-tcl] scripts to wrapping [tk] and I believe even tk + certain [extension]s. The pure Tcl version--freewrapTCLSH--generates an executable that's typically just over a quarter of a megabyte. ---- Alex [[Vizantinos?]] provides a recipe [http://groups.google.com/groups?q=freewrap+decrypt+group:comp.lang.tcl*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3957b880.0305181722.4fb7216d%40posting.google.com] for reverse engineering a Freewrap-ped application. Dennis follows that up with a simple counter-recipe for use of a private encryption key. ---- Latest version (5.6) gives up source code encryption [http://freewrap.sourceforge.net/freewrap_history.html]. ---- [MG] notes on May 12th, 2005 that a '''v6.0''' seems to be available, since the start of the year, according to the download's page. It uses Tcl 8.4.8. ---- See also [tbcload] and [Freedelivery] ---- In a world with [Starpack]s, [mktclapp], and so on, what's the point of freeWrap? One benefit is that freeWrap builds in [BLT]. [MG] I've been using Freewrap since before I knew Starkits existed (and possibly since before they did exist?). I've read a lot of very long pages on how to use a Starkit to make an executable of a Tcl script, which several files and utilities to download.. and then I just drag-and-drop my Tcl script onto Freewrap and my executable is made. That's why I've kept using it. Though, lately (I think since I downloaded freeWrap 6), I've found that if I edit the icons or version info of my freeWrap'd executable with Resource Hacker, as I've always done, it no longer works, which is a downside that would make me consider switching to Starkits now.' [EKB] I ''had'' had the same experience, but now things have changed... What was happening is that version 6.0 of Freewrap uses UPX to compress the executable. However, UPX doesn´t work when the executable calls itself, as Freewrap must (to use the zip vfs). So, only a core part of the Freewrap executable is UPX-compressed. As a result, if you run upx -d on Freewrap, it will run, but render it unusable. The solution is simple: a non-UPX version of Freewrap. I just got an e-mail from [Dennis LaBelle] telling me that version 6.1 has been released with no UPX. Hooray! So, [MG], you should be able to use FreeWrap again. [A/AK] It's OK to use UPX when the executable calls itself. However, if the executable's tail is a zip archive (like in freewrap), the archive's table of contents must be adjusted when the preamable's size changes. The standard InfoZIP's ''zip'' program can do it when the ''-A'' option is given. Thus, if someone has UPX-ed freewrap and wants to decompress it, or he has decompressed freewrap and wants an UPX-ed one, it's easy: upx freewrap.exe / upx -d freewrap.exe zip -A freewrap.exe No more need to wait for the next version of freewrap. No more feature requests to [Dennis LaBelle] causing him to switch between using and not using UPX compression with each subsequent version. ---- [Category Application]