| I appreciate that we're probably going to continue to have opposite opinions on this. MSI (and MSIX) are complex databases of pain, but they absolutely know how to uninstall everything that they are told to install and that machinery is well tested now across way too many Windows versions. On the other hand, if someone even bothers to test a script-based uninstall is a crapshoot. > the idea of "help some of the upstream packages clean up their installers" is irrational and unrealistic Not really, it is standard open source practice. Installers aren't the most interesting or glamorous thing to maintain so they often welcome any help that they can get. Most Windows users still don't use any package manager in 2023 and still prefer good installers directly from upstream sources. > some of those tools may be even done with the upgrades, which doesn't mean they shouldn't get a package. Ruby's Windows installer has long been run by third party developers. Git for Windows started as a third party operation before getting officially blessed. Open source is full of instances where the person packaging the software is not the original developer. (That most of Linux packaging, even, it's not just a Windows phenomenon.) Without "official" blessing from upstream it can be hard to get people to trust your distribution, but if upstream isn't bothering with maintenance anyway, it is no longer their project. (That's also extremely common in Linux software packaging, new maintainers are often blessed because they did a good packaging job.) > Furthermore, many choco packages are embedded and contain the software My experience was very few of the packages I used did that and almost all revolved around some ad hoc Invoke-WebRequest or similar somewhere in their PowerShell scripts, but obviously that is my own anecdotal experience and I'm glad for you that you've had a better time trying to CI/CD with choco than I ever had. Some people have built custom sources for winget to help with CI/CD scenarios. Out-of-the-box caching/CDN for the primary public sources is still an active discussion, but the neat thing is that it is an active discussion out on GitHub so that you can directly voice your "serious" use cases, if you wish. A good thing about winget is that it is extensible (custom sources) and developed in the open on GitHub (Chocolatey went corporate and a lot of discussion moved proprietary and some of it went closed source years ago). |
How is that different. You seem to compare about method/language used.
> MSI (and MSIX) are complex databases of pain, but they absolutely know how to uninstall everything that they are told to install and that machinery is well tested now across way too many Windows versions.
They can do whatever developer wanted to do. Otherwise, we wouldn't have those gazilions of special cleaners/uninstallers we have
> My experience was very few of the packages I used did that and almost all revolved around some ad hoc Invoke-WebRequest
It was the case in the history, 5+ years back. Now big number of packages are not like that. I personally do not use non-embedded packages for office work. See https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-packages/...
> Some people have built custom sources for winget to help with CI/CD scenarios
Yeah, you can fix anything. I keep rejected choco packages on my github too.
> Out-of-the-box caching/CDN for the primary public sources is still an active discussion,
I wouldn't use CDN, its just one dependency replaced by another. Cashing is irrelevant if you do not embed the software.
> but the neat thing is that it is an active discussion out on GitHub so that you can directly voice your "serious" use cases
You can have active discussion on GitHub with choco guys. I am sure results in winget case are not going to be much different. In my experience, way more pain than being useful.
So, to recap, the setup is almost the same with choco being small company and MS not. Choco is vastly better with features. I am moving to winget for various other reasons, that I won't talk about here and it has nothing to do with the tech.