NeoTheThird
commented
4 years ago It will probably not come as a surprise that i'm not a windows expert, but my guess is that it should work. Only one way to find out for sure ;) You unpacked the exe, right? You can also build an unpacked version by running node build.js -o win32 -p dir, if that's more convenient.
By the way, while i appreciate your willingness in helping to improve availability of the installer, please make sure you continue to update those releases in the future. Since the UBports Installer is still in beta and rapidly evolving, older releases are not supported by us for a long time after the next one is out. So it might be frustrating for users if they have to move to a package from a different distribution channel.
You might also want to do something about our update notification popup, because if you just unpack the exe artifact, it'll prompt users to download a new exe once the next release is available. Also, our bug triagers and open-cuts moderators will get confused when people report bugs for the exe package even though the pacakge is not actually exe. You can solve that by injecting extra metadata in the package.json during the build phase, just add the -e '{"package": "scoop"}' flag when running the build script. Send me a PR to change the link in the update modal to display the correct instructions for scoop, and the experience should be pretty good: https://github.com/ubports/ubports-installer/blob/master/src/pug/modals/new-update.pug#L16
Thank you!
I'm working on adding this app to Scoop (https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop-extras/pull/5199). If the app is extracted as a 7z archive, will it work as intended? Asking because it's easier to track executable names without a version number for Scoop's autoupdate.