4 ms·

As someone who isn't very familiar with package managers, what does this mean for Chocolatey?

by dvdcxn 11y ago

cwyers 11y ago
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/chocolatey/a8WdEoF-M58 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/chocolatey/a8WdEoF-M... > What does this mean for Chocolatey? More awesome. More security. More better. Chocolatey is going nowhere, OneGet is a core API that enables package managers to hook in and take advantage of Windows components easier. > The best understanding I have is that OneGet is shipping with a prototype plugin compatible with Chocolatey. Right now this means that it is separate from Chocolatey. We will be working with Garrett to bring the plugin over to core Chocolatey as we rewrite the Chocolatey client in C# this year. > Right now folks are getting up in arms as they see this as a replacement for Chocolatey and it is not. Chocolatey will need to build a few hooks for use with OneGet.
- towelguy 11y ago
  So Chocolatey is gonna use OneGet in the back? I was thinking it would be a package provider for OneGet instead.
  - squeaky-clean 11y ago
    I don't know much about how this works, but it looks like that's exactly it. https://github.com/OneGet/ChocolateyProvider https://github.com/OneGet/ChocolateyProvider
mc32 11y ago
Looks like it means it could get more traction usage as it gets included in this aggregator. One hopes this alleviates the pains in delivering and managing SW packages on win machines.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Well, I don't feel like it really had any future. Sysadmins knew MS was going to launch this thing soon and Chocolatey requires trust in some random third party, which is unsettling. My understanding is they recently tried a more linuxy volunteer based system, but frankly its too little too late. I'd say once this launches Chocolatey is dead. I guess it could work with this system, but why bother with all of its liabilities? You can just build a local package source on a shared drive and call it a day. Or I could see an official one eventually hosted by MS. Enterprise needs some level of protection against poisoned sources. Also, word to to wise, if you want to push your software in an environment full of regulations, PHB's, etc pick a professional name for it. There's a reason people pay for Photoshop or use Paint.net instead of The Gimp. Or why the FCK editor goes by the name CK editor now.

As someone who isn't very familiar with package managers, what does this mean for Chocolatey?

by dvdcxn 11y ago

As someone who isn't very familiar with package managers, what does this mean for Chocolatey?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/chocolatey/a8WdEoF-M58 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/chocolatey/a8WdEoF-M... > What does this mean for Chocolatey? More awesome. More security. More better. Chocolatey is going nowhere, OneGet is a core API that enables package managers to hook in and take advantage of Windows components easier. > The best understanding I have is that OneGet is shipping with a prototype plugin compatible with Chocolatey. Right now this means that it is separate from Chocolatey. We will be working with Garrett to bring the plugin over to core Chocolatey as we rewrite the Chocolatey client in C# this year. > Right now folks are getting up in arms as they see this as a replacement for Chocolatey and it is not. Chocolatey will need to build a few hooks for use with OneGet.

towelguy 11y ago
So Chocolatey is gonna use OneGet in the back? I was thinking it would be a package provider for OneGet instead.
- squeaky-clean 11y ago
  I don't know much about how this works, but it looks like that's exactly it. https://github.com/OneGet/ChocolateyProvider https://github.com/OneGet/ChocolateyProvider

mc32 11y ago

Looks like it means it could get more traction usage as it gets included in this aggregator. One hopes this alleviates the pains in delivering and managing SW packages on win machines.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Well, I don't feel like it really had any future. Sysadmins knew MS was going to launch this thing soon and Chocolatey requires trust in some random third party, which is unsettling. My understanding is they recently tried a more linuxy volunteer based system, but frankly its too little too late. I'd say once this launches Chocolatey is dead. I guess it could work with this system, but why bother with all of its liabilities? You can just build a local package source on a shared drive and call it a day. Or I could see an official one eventually hosted by MS. Enterprise needs some level of protection against poisoned sources. Also, word to to wise, if you want to push your software in an environment full of regulations, PHB's, etc pick a professional name for it. There's a reason people pay for Photoshop or use Paint.net instead of The Gimp. Or why the FCK editor goes by the name CK editor now.