chocolatey / choco

Chocolatey - the package manager for Windows
https://chocolatey.org
Other
10.05k stars 890 forks source link

Add ability to manage Windows Store applications #3360

Open davidem00 opened 7 months ago

davidem00 commented 7 months ago

Checklist

Is Your Feature Request Related To A Problem? Please describe.

choco is currently a robust, albeit incomplete solution for managing program installs since a whole class of "installable" apps fall - those in the Microsoft Store fall outside its purview.

Describe The Solution. Why is it needed?

it would be useful to expand the system's reach to cover installing items from the App Store, so it can be as comprehensive as possible for system restores/migrations. Some (growing?) number of apps now only install from the Store, as well as only installing for a single ("current") user.

This would also require that the choco paradigm be extended to track which apps are currently only installed for certain users, but this is already a deficiency for some MSI packages like GitKraken, where the Admin user cannot install the standard MSI for all users, because it lands in $(user)/AppData.

So, maybe, besides hooks to invoke Store installations, there should be a package flag that designates that a given item is installed "Per User", and the choco system, extended to provide appropriate handling (maybe place a "run once" script in each user's/new user profile, or the like?)

Additional Context

For instances where the App Store merely installs a system-wide program (as opposed to separate per-user installs) via an EXE or MSI that can otherwise be downloaded and packaged for choco, the current choco packaging mechanism is better, but some things - Instagram, as a not-so-productive but nevertheless popular example - only exists in the Store. I can imagine other apps, like conferencing and messaging apps moving in that direction.

Related Issues

No response

pauby commented 7 months ago

Ordinarily, I'd say this is a duplicate of #1823. However, this issue provides more information so I will close #1823 in favour of this one.