[wpkg-users] Chocolatey?

[heiko.helmle at horiba.com]

>  From my point of view:
> 
> 1. Chocolatery is under active development/support

Though the WPKG-Team is pretty conservative regarding new features, WPKG 
is stable and still developed.

> 2. Chocolatery has a huge community

WPKG community is still active and big enough that google searches for 
"silent / unattended" install often end on the WPKG wiki. Even more often 
as appdeploy.com has been "relaunched" and is a shadow of itself now...

> 3. Chocolatery uses "modern" powershell

a hard dependency that needs an install of two rather big packages on 
anything <8. 

> 
> I am sorry to say, but I guess, the days of WPKG are counted.

Maybe not so fast. Chocolatey is promising, but misses a few key features 
for internal deployment.

* Private Repositories seem to need special servers. At least I was unable 
to quickly find any documentation for NuGet Remote Servers that don't 
require either some special software (like Sonatype Nexus) or at least an 
IIS. And there's no mention on the chocolatey site if the do support 
private repos.
* Mostly support for portable apps. Installables seem to be somehow 
supported, but the emphasis (of NuGet and thus chocolatey) seems to be 
portables, not installers.
* No package checks. the <check> node in WPKG is one of its most powerful 
features.
* In WPKG every install command can be conditional. I make heavy use of 
this feature - Chocolatey doesn't seem to have any helper commands - you 
have to script everything yourself.


Generally I'd love for WPKG to leave WSH behind (which probably means a 
rewrite, so not likely) and gain some built-in features that make 
authenticating packages possible. But as it is, I'm happy with it. 

I'm considering calling chocolatey from WPKG for some packages. I think 
I'll check that out :)

Best Regards
 Heiko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/attachments/20141102/74ec8586/attachment-0003.html>