Those are not good options, seriously lacking in one form or another. Don't take my word for it: https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2015/09/software-you-can-use...

I've used py2exe extensively and was happy with it. I also used it with python 2.x despite the article's assertion.

You can also zip an app (think .jar) since 2.6, with the zippap module available in 3.5.

Nuitka?

No system installation is required with Lua. It can be built into your app.

Neither is it required with PyInstaller/Py2exe.

As of last year, these options were not very good either... perhaps the situation has changed? The reality is distribution for Python apps is not good. https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2015/09/software-you-can-use...

In cca 2005 timeframe we used to ship py2exe-d windows desktop application (using wxwidgets framework), with exactly zero issues. The target was a wide range of windows releases, from 95(!) to XP.

I haven't seen any of problems mentioned in the blog post.

That article's dismissal of py2exe is false.

This is really meant for monkmartinez, but you're right.

I'd like to add, that blog can be dismissed outright. It's also out of date in regards to PyInstaller. It does support Python3 now. 2.7;3.3-3.5. I've used PyInstaller for years and prefer it over the other packaging solutions, it's really good.

I wouldn't be digging up old blogs as a source for dirt and relying on any information within without verifying it was or still is true.

5MB. Including libuv, zlib, openssl, and pcre.