coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Andreas Schiffler <aschiffler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 An MSI file is basically a database containing tables with 
relationships (reference: 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa372860), so that means 
handling it is more complex than a ZIP. But since the installer (msiexe) 
is part of the OS it seems like the most natural way to install software 
on Windows though, especially when the installer implements a lot of 
functionality (i.e. transactional install /w rollback capability, delta 
compression for patches, restart manager integration, etc.) which one 
gets basically for free when using MSIs. There are tools to convert 
to/from MSIs (i.e. WiX's Light.exe and Dark.exe, see 
http://wix.sourceforge.net/) and they are presumably included in CoApp 
as dependency.

In absence of an installer executable on the target box, you'd have to 
create an EXE. For that I have used NSIS in the past 
(http://nsis.sourceforge.net) and must say I've liked it, mostly because 
the final installers are very compact and the scripting system fit my 
"coder" mentality. But to quote their documentation "To create a NSIS 
installer, you first have to write a NSIS script." which may not be much 
easier than dealing with MSIs.

My 2 cents.
--Andreas

On 9/26/10 7:54 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 4:23 AM, John McNamee<jpm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > Does anybody outside of Microsoft really like MSI?  Wouldn’t a package
> > format based on ZIP archives be a better cultural fit for open source
> > software?  I know MSI is the supported method for installing SxS
> > assemblies.  For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that isn’t an issue.
> > What other advantages do you see in MSI?  Are those advantages worth it?
> IMO MSI is just an implementation 'detail'.
>
> > (2) Shallow forks vs. upstream support
> >
> > I understand that shallow forks are needed to get started, but I hope the
> > ultimate goal is getting CoApp adopted by as many upstream packages as
> > possible.  I have a dream that some day, I'll be able to grab the latest
> > code for random open source projects and build them on Windows as easily as
> > on Unix.
> There's no reason not to get upstream support.
>
> > (3) CMake
> >
> > Have you looked at CMake (http://www.cmake.org)?  There are several
> > cross-platform build systems out there, and none has emerged as a clear
> > standard.  However, my observation is that CMake has gained the greatest
> > acceptance.  Could CoApp leverage CMake?
> IMO it's ok but not good.
>
> Olaf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp