Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Why have you chosen MSI files rather than something simpler and more convenient (like Zip+Manifest)?

0
Posted

Why have you chosen MSI files rather than something simpler and more convenient (like Zip+Manifest)?

0

Oh, trust me, I really wanted to. I realize that Windows Installer is kindof a bloated beast that has a lot of downsides; we’ve has chosen MSI as the packaging format because it is handles so many other situations very well–one noteable point, is that on XP & Windows 2003, the only way to install a native Side-by-Side components is by using MSIs. We’ve taken steps to lessen the burden by deliberately limiting the scope of what we are using in MSI to not encumber packages in a painful mess. As well, by using MSIs we gain the ability to leverage things like group policies, Windows Logo certification, transactional installations, and trivial adoption by other non-CoApp consumers—there is nothing that would stop someone from using CoApp packages for some of their dependencies, and without having do anything other than install the MSIs. Hey, rather than commenting here, come join mailing list (join the team at https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers) and continue the conversation!

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123