coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[John McNamee <jpm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 I probably should have been more clear on this point. I've been building 
Windows Installer packages for several years (using WiX).  I do understand the 
concepts.  I've also worked with Wise and NSIS, driver installation (INF 
files), and hand crafted C/C++ installers.

My experience with Windows Installer hasn't been entirely positive.  I 
appreciate the benefits (and the "elegance") of declarative installation, but 
it often seems to work better in theory than in practice.  Once you start 
adding custom actions, you can easily end up with the worst of both worlds.  
Also, I don't think Windows Installer is a particularly appealing 
implementation of declarative install.

The question I was trying to ask is whether the pain of Windows Installer is 
worth the benefit.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] CoApp questions
From: Andreas Schiffler <aschiffler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 9/26/2010 6:12 PM
>    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