Were the use of packed libraries ever looked into? We're running into some real headaches that caused by not being able to deploy a package as a packed library (or even just use a packed library as the source of the package).
Our issue is that we have several APIs that we are currently distributing as a package AND those are then getting built into extensible / plugin applications. The goal was for our developers to be able to use the distributed API to develop a plugin for one of our applications. Excluding the VIPM / Palettes stuff, one of the best ways to achieve this was to have our main application use a framework packed library (lets call it Plugin.lvlib with a class PluginParent.lvclass) and then build packed libraries for each plugin. This avoids so much of the hell of all other methods with dependencies etc.
However, when we build our Plugin.lvlib:PluginParent.lvclass into a packed library it ends up "swallowing" the API class and renaming it "Plugin.lvlibp:API.lvclass". This means that none of our pallet VIs work (As they are just API.lvclass). If we could distribute our API as a packed library in the first place (either building the packed library before VIPM or as a destination option for VIPM) then the API packed library would not get swallowed and renamed and everything would work.
We tried creating an installer using LabVIEW's built in tools which made everything work except for 2 cosmetic issues: 1. we would miss the VIPM versioning etc, 2. we have no palletes (besides building, installing, creating palettes using deployed code, copying to back source and rebuilding, I'm not sure how to sensibly do this outside of VIPM).