Option to prefer .portable packages

[alexchandel]

There are myriad foo.portable/foo.install package couplets, and it isn't always consistent which package the root package foo points to. Having a global setting, possibly in choco feature, would greatly simplify the task of preferably/exclusively installing "portable" or "install" packages. Such an option would also mean that such Chocolatey users wouldn't have to avoid packages that depend on root packages that require the "install"/"portable" version.

This is similar to #258, but can be implemented much sooner, as it doesn't require having additonal knowledge of how each .install package works.

It likely requires the addition of a [packages.metadata.type] entry to the nuspec of the root package, marking it as "virtual" or "meta". Once this is present, the .portable version could be inferred by appending .portable to value of [packages.metadata.id]. The has the advantage that variants don't need to be explicitly characterized. It doesn't work for old .commandline packages though, which should be deprecated by creating and depending on a .portable package anyway.

Another design is to have a [packages.metadata.variants] tag containing the ids of package variants, with entries like <portable>foo.portable</portable>, <install>foo.install</install>, and even <portable>foo.commandline</portable>. This isn't necessarily incompatible with inferring ids, since the absence of a portable variant could simply default to foo.portable, should such a package exist.

(edited due to horrible keyboard)

[ferventcoder]

Not really similar to #352 ;)

But it's definitely something I've wanted for a long time - a preference to prefer and then just run the install for the meta/virtual package and it just does the right thing if it is available, and does some magic if it is not.

Depends on virtuals being implemented first.

[ferventcoder]

Note that the first step for virtuals is already in - chocolatey/nuget-chocolatey@dba9a83 (it's called provides)

[alexchandel]

Sweet, I'm definitely adding this. It's just <provides>foo</provides> right?

Is there currently a means to distinguish between install and portable packages, other than by name?

[ferventcoder]

@alexchandel The first step is in. Haha. Nothing but the metadata exists currently. The next steps are to get choco to know about it and package indexes.

[TheCakeIsNaOH]

This is the issue for getting virtual packages: #858

Then the a package.portable and package.install could both <provides>package</provides>, and then when you choco install package, it could see that both .install and .portable are available, and pick the one you have selected via config/features.