Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

chocolatey.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

#13

Post by analognoise »

adsofhoads wrote: post #7

I can't use Chocolately to install zlib or libpng or SDL or libcurl or GMP or really any of the packages that I would never have to think about installing on Linux, because they were pulled as dependencies long ago. The method for obtaining these on Windows is, as best as I have ever been able to tell, to navigate to each of their webpages and look for Windows releases, which you then download and install yourself, a…

Check out MSYS2.

Re: Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

#14

Post by rkeene2 »

e12e wrote: post #6
rkeene2 wrote: post #4

It's definitely not equivalent to "apt-get" -- I tried it out recently and it's a scripted installer for many things, but lacks a functional package manager backend like apt-get requires (dpkg, rpm for apt-rpm, etc). Further, it doesn't have a repository of the packages themselves -- it tries to pull them from upstream, which sometimes means it will try to fetch a version that has been removed, moved, or is otherwise…

Something that has more of a "true" package manager feel for windows is scoop: https://scoop.sh It's not quite a full package manager either - but it works well enough, should be easy to add package/manifests for, and does allow one to update installed packages: https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Chocolatey-Compari...

Seems to be http://scoop.sh/ not https://scoop.sh

Re: Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

#15

Post by jongalloway2 »

All the discussion is focusing on comparing it to apt-get. Instead, see it as a useful tool for scripted application installs for Windows.

The main benefits, in my opinion, are:

* Scriptable *

For example, here's a script I've used to build a new Windows dev box: https://gist.github.com/jongalloway/ffc3a8c71dfdab4245bc

* Silent, no-BS installers *

Chocolatey packages are supposed to point to silent, no-nagware, no BS installers (specifying the correct command-line args for silent, lightweight installs if needed). Instead of hunting for the right "Download" button, just find the package on Chocolatey.org, maybe check the release history and comments if you're concerned, and off you go.

* Dependencies *

Since Chocolatey is based on NuGet, dependencies are a first class concept. That means that a tool that requires a specific version of imagemagick (random example) would depend on that version, Chocolatey would ensure that the deps are installed first. That has other impacts, such as making it easy to provide a customized version of an existing application (e.g. https://chocolatey.org/packages/EthanBrown.ConEmuConfig) or allowing you to build a meta-package that rolls up several other packages (e.g. "web dev loadout" or whatever).

If you're looking at Chocolatey, I highly recommend Boxstarter, which takes it to the next level with support for all kinds of things you'd want when automating machine builds on Windows: http://boxstarter.org/

Re: Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

#16

Post by CookieMon »

gnoway wrote: post #5

I'm surprised to see this here, now. Think carefully before using Chocolatey. It is not, never has been, and never will be the default package system for Windows. IMO the writing is on the wall as MS ships OneGet with Windows 10; while I think I read something about the projects working together, or OneGet supporting Chocolatey repositories or something, I don't believe OneGet's 'native format' will be Chocolatey pac…

To clarrify the situation with OneGet, there are a bunch of things that were widely misreported, and a good corrective article here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/garretts/2015/05/05/10-thin...

Some of those 10 points relate to Chocolatey:

* 1. OneGet isn’t technically a Package-Manager, it’s more of a Package-Manager-Manager. Its actual purpose is to bring together a diverse set of installers, package services, and inventory schemes under a set of unified APIs and PowerShell cmdlets.

* 2. OneGet is not another implementation of Chocolatey. when we released the initial prototype of OneGet at //Build 2014, I wrote a proof-of-concept Chocolatey provider to go along with it (mainly as a test of the interface itself, and a ‘template’ of what a package manager needs to do). On top of that, for quite some time it was the only package provider available for OneGet. And then everyone jumped on the “OneGet is a Chocolatey-compatible package manager” story. Sorry about that.

* 10. OneGet isn’t called OneGet. We renamed the “OneGet” PowerShell module to “PackageManagement” a while back.

Re: Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

#17

Post by basch »

gnoway wrote: post #5

I'm surprised to see this here, now. Think carefully before using Chocolatey. It is not, never has been, and never will be the default package system for Windows. IMO the writing is on the wall as MS ships OneGet with Windows 10; while I think I read something about the projects working together, or OneGet supporting Chocolatey repositories or something, I don't believe OneGet's 'native format' will be Chocolatey pac…

use it for a new project? it's main purpose is for installing desktop applications silently.

choco install adobereader dropbox googlechrome sysinternals -y

Re: Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

#18

Post by drivingmenuts »

CookieMon wrote: post #16
gnoway wrote: post #5

I'm surprised to see this here, now. Think carefully before using Chocolatey. It is not, never has been, and never will be the default package system for Windows. IMO the writing is on the wall as MS ships OneGet with Windows 10; while I think I read something about the projects working together, or OneGet supporting Chocolatey repositories or something, I don't believe OneGet's 'native format' will be Chocolatey pac…

To clarrify the situation with OneGet, there are a bunch of things that were widely misreported, and a good corrective article here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/garretts/2015/05/05/10-thin... Some of those 10 points relate to Chocolatey: * 1. OneGet isn’t technically a Package-Manager, it’s more of a Package-Manager-Manager. Its actual purpose is to bring together a diverse set of installers, package services, a…

OneGet sounds like a better name, IMHO. It's catchier, and thus easier to remember, than PackageManagement.

Was there a reason for the renaming?

Re: Chocolatey – package manager for Windows

#20

Post by ferventcoder »

rkeene2 wrote: post #4

It's definitely not equivalent to "apt-get" -- I tried it out recently and it's a scripted installer for many things, but lacks a functional package manager backend like apt-get requires (dpkg, rpm for apt-rpm, etc). Further, it doesn't have a repository of the packages themselves -- it tries to pull them from upstream, which sometimes means it will try to fetch a version that has been removed, moved, or is otherwise…

You are correct about the distribution licensing, however that really only applies to the packages on the community feed. When Chocolatey is used internally, I think you will see it is more about files on disk versus dealing with things changing and the non-deterministic nature of the internet.
Post reply on HN