ferventcoder

6 ms·

1.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
I wrote a little bit more about Chocolatey packaging, there is quite a bit of confusion about it because most folks only see the packages on the community feed ( https://chocolatey.org/packags ) and think that is the only way
2.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
Actually it depends on the package type. Chocolatey doesn't require an admin shell nor does it require PowerShell for packages that have the runtime executables embedded in the package. Those are known as portable packages. The problem
3.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
Only a download script for GUI apps? That's interesting and very likely misinformed. Since Chocolatey builds on top of NuGet.Core, it's got all of the same benefits to dependency resolution you get with NuGet. Plus it builds on to
4.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
"Chocolatey is that they depended on a bad upstream tool" Hindsight is amazingly much clearer than decisions you make at the time with all the constraints and requirements you have in the moment. :D
5.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
Well "them" == me and my team. It's likely building on top of NuGet was a mistake on my part, but it's all there was at the time and it was pretty easy to get started. We don't need the tools folder and we don'
6.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
A lot has changed in a year. For instance you were likely using Chocolatey prior to when the rewritten compiled version came out.
7.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
It looks like all of my comments on your post were private notes. Edit: I readded the ones I could make public. You wrote that the Chocolatey Gallery had no formal review process, and in the same month (October 2014), a formal review proces
8.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
"Think carefully before using Chocolatey. It is not, never has been, and never will be the default package system for Windows." Mostly because it wasn't created by Microsoft. I mean, let's be realistic here.
9.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
"Chocolatey is based on v2 NuGet which is a) terrible and" I laughed at that point because I completely agree that NuGet v2 isn't great at all. Also you forgot to mention that NuGet v3 is brand new and there isn't yet p
10.
by ferventcoder 11y ago
You are correct about the distribution licensing, however that really only applies to the packages on the community feed. When Chocolatey is used internally, I think you will see it is more about files on disk versus dealing with things cha
11.
#PowerShell, #Chocolatey and #Puppetize have saved Windows as a platform(codebetter.com)
2 points by ferventcoder 12y ago|0 comments
12.
by ferventcoder 12y ago
OneGet the package manager aggregator that has a Chocolatey provider. That's why it's crucial to support Chocolatey!
13.
by ferventcoder 12y ago
Thank you!
14.
by ferventcoder 12y ago
10 days to go! Over half way there. Let's do this!
15.
by ferventcoder 12y ago
Agreed. But most of the pro version features are non-free features for us to offer.
16.
by ferventcoder 12y ago
And the linear top/down flow, also known as manifest ordering, is now available with Puppet. See http://puppetlabs.com/blog/introducing-manifest-ordered-reso...
17.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
I think CoApp is going to be the answer for what you are trying to do. Chocolatey starts after compilation. If someone is already providing libcurl and openssl, these are easily offered as choco packages. Once CoApp comes out, it's highly l
18.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
It could be a chocolatey package. ;)
19.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
And the uninstall command? :D
20.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
That and creating packages with chocolatey is stupid simple compared to what I've seen with CoApp. But CoApp also has source and WinSxS. You can see how easy it is to create a package here: https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey/wiki/Cre
21.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
cinst curl - it's there. For the others, just because they are not there yet, doesn't mean they won't be. Creating packages is pretty simple. This is the main part of the curl package: https://github.com/ferventcoder/nugetpackages/blob/mas
22.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
Would providing the full link be a better idea? For the installer experience, people wanted short and memorable.
23.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
We started with a much more involved set of steps to install and people kept wanting a one liner for the install. It's a tradeoff
24.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
Perhaps the full url to the github file would reduce the cryptic url?
25.
by ferventcoder 15y ago
That is just a way to install chocolatey. After you install, running installs is 'cinst somepackagename'