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<j...@microwiz.com> 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@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
