nunit-dev team mailing list archive

["Charlie Poole" <charlie@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Andreas, 

> [...]
> >> We hadn't talked about this before, but I hesitate to add a Visual 
> >> Studio dependency in order to build the installer. In the past, we 
> >> used a VS Install project, but went to straight WiX using the NAnt 
> >> script because lots of people who want to build it don't have VS 
> >> available. Can we still do it that way?
> > 
> > I'm of two minds here. I did the original installer 
> completely by hand 
> > - a lot of it in notepad. OTOH, I'm guessing the Votive plugin for 
> > Visual Studio allowed you to put it all together a lot more quickly.
> Yes, you're right. Due to the lack of a really good and free 
> text editor on Windows I'd prefer to use Votive for WiX 
> development. Particularly the Intellisense makes it easier to use WiX.

Yes, and I think we should have it for anyone who has access to VS.
 
> >> I can install whatever is needed to test this out but I'd 
> like to get 
> >> away from any VS dependency if we can.
> > 
> > I can see that there is no dependency on VS in order to 
> build the msi 
> > after changing the framework. We can have a package-msi 
> target in the 
> > script, just as we now do.
> This would work like any other C# project we have now. 
> Development with VS and Votive (or SharpDevelop), but the 
> build script calls the NAnt tasks for WiX.
> 
> > The dependency is for making any changes in the install itself.
> > I see two ways to go here:
> > 
> > 1. Keep the VS solution. Major changes will have to be made 
> by someone 
> > with access to VS2008. Many minor changes could probably be made 
> > simply by editing the wxs files directly.
> > 
> > 2. Drop the solution and go back to hand editing files.
> > 
> > Are there other choices?
> Maybe Intellisense would even work without the solution and 
> the project.
> WiX files are XML files with a schema and Intellisense is 
> provided by the XML editor which parses the schema files 
> which has been installed by the WiX installer.

It probably would. That may also mean that express users can
edit the files.

> I think it would be harder to test, since you'd have to run 
> the build script to create the installer.
> 
> > Of those two choices, I'm surprising myself by suggesting that
> > #1 has the edge. 
> > 
> > * It does create a dependency on VS, but a limited one.
> > * VS is not needed to generate a new package after changing
> >   the framework.
> > * VS is not really needed even to modify the package logic
> >   itself - it just makes it a lot easier.
> > 
> > If there is another way to build a WiX installer - with 
> SharpDevelop 
> > for example - I'd like to support that as well, but if not 
> I'm OK with 
> > having the solution as a convenience for VS users.
> SharpDevelop can open the solution and you can use the WiX 
> extension which ships with SharpDevelop. The only problem is 
> that SharpDevelop "downgrades" the solution file by 
> specifying format version "9.00"
> instead of "10.00".

Not a big deal. If #develop supports it then I think we have
eliminated the problem of locking in VS.
 
Charlie

> > 
> > That said, I don't think we should do anything that locks it in 
> > further, like adding extensions or user logic in the same solution.
> > 
> > BTW, I'm assuming the installer project won't work with C# Express, 
> > right?
> You're right. I'm using Visual Studio 2008 Shell for WiX 
> development with Votive. But that means that there must be 
> only WiX projects in the solution.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev
> Post to     : nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>