Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Chocolatey...opinions? portable?
panzer:
More info: Gow is a shell, not a package manager. It's an alternative for windows to Cygwin. But it was a welcome find for other reasons, even so. I'd stopped using Cygwin because it was so huge. Gow is apparently small.
-wraith808 (September 18, 2015, 01:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
More Cygwin alternatives (at the bottom of the page):
http://alternativeto.net/software/cygwin/
IainB:
@panzer's list above shows that there are several options for third-party non-proprietary application AUMs (Auto-Update Managers) in the market, and an exhaustively comprehensive list could well be much longer.
--- End quote ---
...
I gave up as I found that they generally tended to have some unavoidable common limitations which, taken together, made them not-so-useful for my purposes.
_______________________________
--- End quote ---
-IainB (September 18, 2015, 11:17 AM)
--- End quote ---
That had been the case here too, but things seem to have evolved over the years -- of course, my criteria are different. For example, I'd much prefer something along the lines of:
* Can examine, tweak and extend source code of the system, but also allow creation of 'recipes' for additional software with a reasonable amount of effort
* Can build with tools which I 'can build' / trust
* The system itself being portable
* Not requiring additional components to be installed (or minimal additions if possible -- it turns out that there appears to be a version of Scoop which runs with PowerShell 2 so PowerShell 3 may not have to be installed if one is using Windows 7 SP1)
As we're likely all aware, the installation / deployment step has been abused in recent years so some might say it's prudent to be on the paranoid side regarding tools and systems that aid in such processes :)
_______________________________________
-ewemoa (September 18, 2015, 08:34 PM)
--- End quote ---
Things certainly do seem to have evolved over the years.
Quite by chance, I stumbled upon these links (below) whilst looking at ways to automate the updates of AutoHotkey Hotkey files across disparate client devices, via the Internet.
The vid in the first link is very instructive - about 36mins. long.
The second link is what led me to the first, and it has some useful information there.
* Chocolatey Hotkey – using and creating plugins, hosts, and libraries | AlexDresko.com
* Chocolatey + AutoHotKey = Chocolatey Hotkey (CHK) | AlexDresko.com
...Wouldn’t it be cool if anyone could quickly and easily install one of your AHK scripts on their own computer? Or imagine sitting down at someone’s computer and typing a simple command to install an AHK script that you find useful. And wouldn’t it be cool if others could contribute to this mechanism to create a community of easily installable and maintainable scripts?!?!?
You can now, with Chocolatey Hotkey (CHK). CHK is, essentially, a package manager for AutoHotKey scripts that utilizes Chocolatey for distribution. It is also a great way to modularize your scripts as plugins instead of having one big AHK script that you have to maintain. ...
______________________
--- End quote ---
ewemoa:
More info: Gow is a shell, not a package manager. It's an alternative for windows to Cygwin. But it was a welcome find for other reasons, even so. I'd stopped using Cygwin because it was so huge. Gow is apparently small.
-wraith808 (September 18, 2015, 01:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'd come to use Cygwin less over the years as I had difficulty consistently making it portable -- the size was also not a point in its favor.
Gow does look interesting.
Thanks to panzer for pointing it out :)
ewemoa:
Quite by chance, I stumbled upon these links (below) whilst looking at ways to automate the updates of AutoHotkey Hotkey files across disparate client devices, via the Internet.
-IainB (September 19, 2015, 04:47 PM)
--- End quote ---
From briefly viewing portions of one of the 'using and creating...' video I gathered that:
* One can use a tool to generate a skeleton file/folder structure that eventually get packaged as a .nupkg for Chocolatey (looks like the fellow used yeoman for this).
* Once the skeleton files are generated, one appropriately edits some of the generated .ahk files to place one's own AHK code within
* By an appropriate method generated a .nupkg file and then optionally upload / place the .nupkg file somewhere one's Chocolatey installations can get at it (e.g. somewhere on the net, a local directory, etc.)
* One can use Chocolatey to install those appropriately located .nupkg files
Does that sound about right?
ewemoa:
IIRC, I'd avoided ZeroInstall earlier because of .NET dependencies and the seeming requirement of having to sign packages (nice to have optionally, but being forced even for my own local purposes seemed too much).
-ewemoa (September 18, 2015, 06:14 PM)
--- End quote ---
Current impression is that with "local feeds", signing is not necessary (or not done even if desired?):
There are two other differences to note: there is no digital signature at the end (we assume that no attacker could intercept the file between your harddisk and you ;-), and the version number ends in a modifier (-pre in this case), showing that it hasn't been released.
--- End quote ---
via http://0install.net/local-feeds.html
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version