Initial support for .run packages. #651
Conversation
…, effectively turning them into script-packages)
|
Howdy, Note: We do have a contributors.md that pops up when you try to submit a On Sunday, January 4, 2015, andulv [email protected] wrote:
Rob http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds |
|
Thanks for the feedback. I have read the contributors.md and totally understand that you might not accept this PR. I implemented this feature for own use. We are in the process of deploying Chocolatey against a private repository, and needed a way to enable clients to execute centrally administered scripts. We will be rolling out this modified version of Chocolatey to our clients, but figured we would like to contribute our efforts upstreams. Consider this pull request as my first "feature request" for this feature. I will follow up on mailing list. :) If the feature is accepted I can reimplement it in the new C# version. |
|
Awesome. Thanks for understanding. I'm trying to understand why you would want to remove traces of the install. We have similar packages that only run once, but you keep them around in case there are updates to the packages and you want to deploy that new functionality out. |
|
Pending discussion a PR may be issued against new choco. |
|
Just filed a issue (#652) where I tried to explain this feature and why we see the need for it. I also posted to the mailing list (Google group). But my post just disappeared upon submit. Dont know if was session timeout or something, or if the group is moderated and the post will show up later? (I dont have much experience with Google groups). |
Yes, the forums are moderated. I don't see it in the queue for moderation though. Hopefully it will turn up, and if/when it does, it will get approved. Thanks for taking the time to explain this further. |
|
@andulv I have just approved your Google Groups post 👍 |
|
@gep13 Thanks. Waiting for response. Hopefully others will agree with me, or someone comes up with a better way to achieve the same result. BTW: If you guys have read the use-case in the issue I filed, you have probably noticed that we are a potential fit for your business licenses. I also noticed that even though the Kickstarter is funded and closed, that you have sold very few of the larger business pledges. Would it be possible to go for one of these pledges even though the Kickstarter is closed? Send me an e-mail at [email protected] if you want to discuss it. |
Sorry, I am going to have to leave that question for @ferventcoder. I know that he is out just now, but he will definitely follow up with you. |
I think this is mostly in part due to a short 30 day window, no guarantee that the kickstarter was going to be successful (until about 3 days out when it funded), businesses usually want to remain private, and most businesses go through a PO to do amounts over $1,000 (the PO process is usually longer than 10 days - they are not going to do it through a kickstarter). Would you guys have funded with your name on the public backers page and been able to do so with a credit card (not a PO)? That question is mostly curiosity, because most of the businesses I talked to indicated one or more of the above. |
|
I wouldn't hold much water in the low amount of business licenses sold. I'd reserve that for when we have a billing system set up and what the potential is going to be. I'd imagine that we are going to see a few that I probably won't be able to name. :) |
Unfortunately, once a Kickstarter is over, you can't back the project. However next summer we will have a system set up for accepting payments and generating licenses. |
|
Credit card would be no problem for us, as long as we get at an invoice / receipt that specifies that we have paid for software/support or something similar. But we are a small three-person company so not much bureucracy needed. But, guess we'll have to wait then. Judging from the amount of free support I have received today I believe we will manage without paid support for a while. :) Anyway, I think our use case might be a interesting niche for you. We support a lot of standalone desktop computers that are not on the same network or in a domain. There exists tons of solutions for distributing / updating desktop applications and configurations, but all/most of them are based on network shares, login scripts, remote powershell or similar. Juding by the success of TeamViewer and similar software, there are quite a lof of small companies like us that support non-corporate-networked desktops. The focus (and userbase) of Chocolatey today seems to be prosumers/developers for desktops and enterprise / developers on servers. Our use case is something of a mix between them. I.e. a business license that is valid only for internal use in one company, would probably be impossible for us and other similar shops. A license that allows us to deploy on customers computers would be needed. |
.run Packages ara packages that are not "installed", effectively turning them into script-packages. The packages are not installed to lib\ folder, but in every other aspects they are identical to ordinary packages.
When a package has the extension '.run' this happens upon install:
One of the main advantages of .run packages as part of Chocolatey is dependencies. .run packages can depend on ordinary packages (or other .run packages). Ordinary packages can depend on .run packages.
Scenario 1 - AdvancedScriptPackage.run
Scenario 2 - CustomBusinessApplication (ordinary package)
I have done basic testing, and the changes seems to be working as intended.
If necessary I can do more testing and try to write some unit tests.