coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Eric Schultz <wwahammy@xxxxxxxxx>]

John,

I'm heading up mkPackage which creates the actual MSI files for CoApp
packages. I will be the first person to tell you MSI is a pain to deal with
and I can say much of it from first hand experience dealing with it. I
wouldn't want anyone to have to make MSI packages by hand which is the
reason we're creating mkPackage so developers don't have to deal with it
MSI's

MSI does have advantages though. Installations are truly transactional (they
either install properly or don't at all), they can be signed so that users
know who created the package, they have built-in support for modifying the
registry, adding and deleting users, WinSxS and GAC assemblies, automatic
uninstallation and repair scripts, they have a pretty good toolkit in Wix
for creating them and there are already tools built into Windows to handle
them.

No MSIs aren't perfect by a long shot but they do what we want, fit into the
current Windows Ecosystem and don't require us to reinvent the wheel.

Eric

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, John McNamee <jpm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  I just recently found out about CoApp.  I don't know how I missed the
> original announcement, but I'm glad I found it now.  I think CoApp could be
> a Very Good Thing.  You're attacking a problem that has bugged me for a long
> time.  At the risk of coming off as a jerk who shows up and starts
> complaining, I would like to ask about some of the design choices...
>
> (1) Windows Installer / MSI
>
> 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?
>
> (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.
>
> (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?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
> Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>