Use MSI instead of zip - Githubissues

carstn / chocolatey-packages

chocolatey package for Go

https://chocolatey.org/packages/golang

The Unlicense

4 stars 3 forks source link

Use MSI instead of zip #18

Open henryx opened 7 years ago

henryx commented 7 years ago

Currently the chocolatey package uses zip package for installation of the Golang environment. Is it possible to use the MSI package instead of the zip package?

rgl commented 6 years ago

what's the advantage?

henryx commented 6 years ago

Advantages are:

More integration with the OS, e.g. you can view the installation in the control panel, and/or you have shortcuts in the Start menu.
Less work. Installer automatically sets the environment variables without you need to do in the Chocolatey script

dojineko commented 6 years ago

😃 howdy. ~~i started golang.install (now in review)~~ (this is closed) but, i think, it is inconvenient that there are several packages named golang.*. so, can i create a PR here?

dojineko commented 6 years ago

@carstn @rgl What do you think about this? I think, this is useful way to install golang. (If there is no important reason... e.g. keep clean Windows registry 😇) Please let me help you with about this, if it's OK with you!

ctmcisco commented 6 years ago

Again why not use the MSI?

carstn commented 6 years ago

I think using the MSI is a good idea. It would speed up the install process (unzipping the current package is really slow due to Chocolatey), the install would be simpler, and the automatic integration with the Windows registry is a plus.

I don't think we should entirely discontinue the current zip method. What are your thoughts on adding a .portable or .install package? Is there a Chocolatey best practice for this? Should there be a golang.install package, and golang.portable package, and a third package called golang that points to one of those (i.e. a virtual package)?

Thanks for your thoughts on this, and on any other problems this transition may introduce.

gep13 commented 6 years ago

Speaking from a Chocolatey Team perspective, having three packages golang, golang.install and golang.portable certainly is a recommended best practice.

The golang.install package would have the MSI installation. The golang.portable package would have the zip installation. The golang package would then take a dependency on whichever package is determined to be the favoured installation method for the underlying application.

Please let me know if you have any questions.