Menu
▾
▴
#150 Install msys2 from chocolatey
It would be nice to support a https://chocolatey.org/ package for msys2. Thank you.
We don't want to do it as we have it's own package manager. Chocolatey provide "packages" that just repacked binaries from different locations. Our mission is to provide for users open source software that can be builded with mingw-w64 toolchains.
IMO cinst is just a clean way to install anything even if they have their own packages. https://chocolatey.org/packages/pip and having an internal package manager wouldn't contrary to that as far I can understand. mingw and cygwin also have cinst packages.
Last edit: ebraminio 2015-04-05
You can create local package for chocolatey. I don't want to have it in our repo.
No problem, thank you :)
Hmm, from rereading this thread I thought there is confusion here and I didn't explain my request correctly, it would be nice if msys2 was available in chocolatey just an shortcut to install msys2 (like https://chocolatey.org/packages/Cygwin and https://chocolatey.org/packages/mingw ), NOT providing chocolatey inside msys2. nvm if still doesn't make sense :)
Why would you install chocolatey then install msys2 with that instead of just installing msys2? I don't encourage anyone to use chocolatey as msys2 is similar to it, but IMHO better and more user freedom respecting (since it's not just a binary repackaging system).
The intention was to install msys2 for making a cross-platform C project which has various dependencies that easily resolvable with msys2, use Appveyor CI, http://help.appveyor.com/discussions/questions/372-build-setup-for-a-c-program or http://help.appveyor.com/discussions/problems/1385-installing-mingw-with-chocolatey-wont-finish
cinst is installed on appveyor machines so I thought it would be nice if I would be able to use "cinst msys2" on that project appveyor config file.
Last edit: ebraminio 2015-04-05
This would be an effective (and very easy-to-use) way of closing https://sourceforge.net/p/msys2/tickets/149/
If MSYS2 is ever going to be used in an automated environment, think buildbots, clean VM's (that don't have any programs that understand .xz formatted tarballs installed by default), AppVeyor CI, you need a non-interactive command-line way of installing the default configuration.
Yes I filled both of them and also this https://sourceforge.net/p/msys2/tickets/163/ to make that happen :) Of course it would be nice if http://help.appveyor.com/discussions/suggestions/615-support-for-msys2 would happen also.
hi @ebraminio. i recently created a chocolatey msys2 pkg, without having read this ticket before. https://chocolatey.org/packages/msys2
you are very welcome to participate, co-maintain, make suggestions... :)
Hi Stefan, can I please request you delete that proposed package?
Last edit: Ray Donnelly 2015-09-09
People want this. The MSYS2 installer is handicapped and a pain in the ass to install from a script. Why delete a contribution that turns 15 lines of ugly tarball wrangling into one line of
choco install msys2?Last edit: Tony Kelman 2015-09-09
Hi Ray. Well... I wouldn't like to... :/ But also want to avoid dislike from the authors ;) I already put some effort into it and have further plans. And using the package already makes things easier for me and my colleagues... want to switch to MINGW64 Python as default and make deployment as simple as possible... I also think of some Chocolatey Python environment management pkg based on MSYS2. I don't see any conflict with the MSYS2 "philosophy". It's just a simpler way of installing MSYS2 + some extra features for simplifying MSYS2 usage in CMD shell (+ plans for PowerShell). It doesn't interfer with MSYS2 package mangement in any way. Is Chocolatey the problem? Or the extra features?
Last edit: Stefan Zimmermann 2015-09-09
Thanks Tony for wanting this! ;)
This would make provisioning of build VM's using MSYS2 way simpler for me. Chocolatey isn't competing with MSYS2, it's just an alternate installer delivery mechanism that's useful in highly scripted automated deployments. Most users installing MSYS2 manually won't need to touch Chocolatey, and the MSYS2 developers probably won't need to do anything to support it if Stefan is volunteering to do the packaging.
Right. I don't need any support. I am responsible for the Chocolatey package. I (hopefully) made that clear in the package notes (and can do that even more explicitly). And of course no one has to touch Chocolatey who doesn't want to...
Stefan and Tony,
Chocolatey describes itself as "like apt-get for Windows", all the while doing nothing more than repackaging binaries made by 3rd parties. We don't want to be associated with such a system since it's not in the spirit (or practice) of Free and Libre Open Source. Can you be sure that Chocolatey hasn't repackaged malware by mistake?
If you are concerned that our installation procedure isn't as easy as you'd like (a concern which I share) we'd ask that you contribute patches to address the shortcomings to the Qt Installer Framework. Our PKGBUILD and patches for the Qt Installer Framework can be found at https://github.com/Alexpux/MINGW-packages/tree/master/mingw-w64-qt-installer-framework and the bug tracking the problem with unattended installation can be found at https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTIFW-166. Once this is fixed, all projects using the QtIFW benefit.
If you want to see MSYS2 added to AppVeyor (which I really hope is happening soon) please add your support at http://help.appveyor.com/discussions/suggestions/615-support-for-msys2
I prefer that the MSYS2 community use and contribute to FOSS and avoid proprietary software where possible.
Neither Alexey nor I want MSYS2 to have anything to do with Chocolately and we don't want our software distributed though it.
Thanks.
Hmm... Alexey wrote before that he just doesn't want to have it in your repos and has no problem with an unaffiliated Chocolatey package. I also wrote about it in your IRC channel and asked him about license notes. He didn't complain in any way. But if it's really that problem for you I will of course delete it! Not doing so would be a disregard of your work on that project...
Is at least the contained msystem.bat tool (and further ideas for better CMD shell integration and some similar powershell module etc...) worth a contribution to MSYS2 itself?
Last edit: Stefan Zimmermann 2015-09-09
Ray, you're being really short-sighted here. First of all, Chocolatey is open source https://github.com/chocolatey/choco. The package build process is documented and reproducible via nuget. Sure the tagline of "like apt-get for windows" is way less accurate for Chocolatey than it is for MSYS2, but one thing where Chocolatey has you beat is one-liner installation. I don't know or use Qt, and if I had given my opinion when you were selecting your installer framework I would have strongly opined that the lack of scriptable installation should have completely ruled out Qt from the beginning. NSIS would have been a better choice IMO.
I don't care about MSYS2 on AppVeyor all that much, I care about it on my own VM's managed by Vagrant provisioning scripts. I already have to use CMake and Python from Chocolatey instead of MSYS2 for various reasons (toolchain locations, virtualenv compatibility, etc). You aren't going to convince people who want to use Chocolatey not to use it where it does the job well, and actively requesting that people don't use it for MSYS2, taking down a valuable contribution, is counterproductive.
Last edit: Tony Kelman 2015-09-09
Just some last additions: Chocolatey packages mostly don't "repackage" anything. They just automate the process of downloading software distributions from their original locations and installing and configuring them according to their authors' original instructions. So does the Chocolatey MSYS2 package. It doesn't contain MSYS2. It just automates the download and installation process as described on your project page. And the Chocolatey MSYS2 package and the contained extras are FOSS themselves, as all other Chocolatey packages, and most of the other stuff I am developing (except the stuff containing restricted company internals)
https://github.com/userzimmermann/choco-packages/tree/master/msys2
But anyway... I won't keep this package online against your will... Just make a final decision.
Last edit: Stefan Zimmermann 2015-09-09
Tony, Chocolatey is about repackaging 3rd party binaries (or it seems downloading and running 3rd party installers). Generally speaking, those binaries can't be built with FOSS tools and don't provide access to the with source code nor to the build recipes so I wouldn't trust such a system to manage the software on my computer and cannot recommend it. That is what I mean by FOSS. Also, this doesn't strike me as an Open Source friendly license (at all): http://realdimensions.net/licenses/chocolateypackageupdater/license.txt
Let's fix the problems with Qt Installer Framework, or else fix the problems with building NSIS on MSYS2 and then use that for our installer. Despite having spent time hacking on QtIFW, I appreciate that commandline installation is extremely important, and my hope is that someone will scratch that itch. MSYS2's problems should be fixed inside MSYS2 and not sidestepped by using other software. I think the Git for Windows guys use NSIS? Maybe they have patches for NSIS.
Regarding virtualenv, I have a patch from my work-in-progress mingw-w64-firefox PKGBUILD that might work for that: https://github.com/Alexpux/MINGW-packages/blob/master/mingw-w64-firefox/0005-Allow-mingw-w64-python.patch. What is the issue with CMake? Please elaborate. Of course filing bug reports for these issues would be appreciated.
Stefan, affiliated or unaffiliated is not really obvious, even if you make it explicit somewhere chances are people won't read it.
Contributions that are useful to all users of MSYS2 will definitely be considered for merging to MSYS2 itself. That's preferable in general than having some odd MSYS2-in-Chocolatey that behaves differently than 'normal' MSYS2 and us fielding bug reports for things that we know nothing about. If you go ahead with MSYS2-in-Chocolatey, please send general improvements upstream..
My final take on this is: While I'd rather time was spent fixing the deficiencies in MSYS2 that cause you to want it added to Chocolately I won't object any further since you clearly care and have spent some time and effort on it. Cheers.
Last edit: Ray Donnelly 2015-09-10
Ray Donnelly wrote:
Hmm.. why do you install Windows on your computer? Is Windows FOSS, open source, free software etc.?
I use Windows because I have to for various work related reasons. My goal with MSYS2 is to limit Windows users' exposure to proprietary software as much as possible. Chocolatey doesn't share this goal and makes it as easy as possible to install proprietary (and yes sometimes Open Source) software on Windows, software which isn't vetted and can easily bring with it malware and worse.
Last edit: Ray Donnelly 2015-09-10