NullSoft installer for Mercurial
steve at borho.org
Wed Sep 5 17:02:43 CDT 2007
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 22:37 +0200, Patrick Mézard wrote:
> Steve Borho a écrit :
> > The benefits of this layout are many. The user has a fully-fledged
> > python development environment. Kdiff3 is fully installed (available
> > via context menus, etc). It is extremely easy to add or upgrade
> > extensions. And lastly it's very simple (and efficient) to upgrade
> > mercurial itself, since they only need to download and install the
> > latest MSI file (which is ~0.5MB).
> > I'm thinking that there will be many people who like the Inno Soft
> > approach (in a nutshell, non-programmers), and many people who will like
> > the NSIS approach. I have no idea how to bring the two together.
> I probably feel like Giovanni Bajo about this, there are two groups of
> users and this hybrid solution may not satisfy any of them.
> 1- The python fluent ones, who can build the package via setup.py and
> configure everything in a couple of minutes. The last thing they want is
> something editing stuff in their existing python environment with much
> less control than a regular package. Sure they will get the contrib
> tools for free, but I expect most of them to already have a merge tool,
> and setting up tcl/tk is really easy.
> 2- The pure users. They want Mercurial and whatever bonus they can get
> with it. They do not care about python. *They are likely to install a
> package version provided by their organization*, which means deployment
> ease (and therefore components isolation) is important. At worse, if
> they really need some feature they could ask someone to generate a new
> package including it, and deploy it again. Your "batteries included"
> perfectly fit the bill.
> The hybrid solution you propose is tempting but in the end I am not sure
> this is what I am looking for. We are currently three developers working
> with Mercurial (mostly Mercurial over SVN), one under Linux, another and
> me under Windows. The other Windows developer don't have the tools nor
> the skills to build it and install it painlessly. I currently give him
> distutils build directories from slightly hacked crew versions, which he
> moves in site-packages manually. Clearly, when I have time, I will take
> a look at Lee Cantey build instructions or yours and find a way to
> generate my own private builds, so he can setup a new one with a single
> click. An somehow, it looks like you hybrid installer: he has python and
> setup prebuild packages. But the interesting feature is or would be to
> upgrade easily by just replacing the previous version by a new one,
> which I think the all-in-one installer can achieve, rather than having a
> collection of components neatly combined (for how long ? this is Windows
I think the "python" approach lends itself to upgrading components much
more than the all-in-one installer does. After the initial install you
can upgrade mercurial by installing a new MSI/egg or even building it
yourself. There's no need to download another big package (and risk
destroying your configuration).
Both approaches have their complexities and their drawbacks, and I don't
think either of them will ever "win". It all depends on how you intend
to use it after it's installed.
Now that I've gone down both routes, if I was going to deploy Mercurial
across a company I would probably chose the NSIS install tool, simply
because it is much more capable at doing upgrades (only downloading and
installing pieces that it determines you need) and post-install tuning,
regardless of which bundling approach I chose.
My next task is to make a web page, or possibly a wiki page, detailing
the two approaches along with their drawbacks and advantages.
PS: Gmail is rejecting all my mail these days, so don't be surprised to
not get a direct reply.
PS2: I'm still waiting for more feedback on the "batteries included"
installer. If anyone is actually using it :) , please let me know where
it needs to be improved.
Steve Borho <steve at borho.org>
More information about the Mercurial-devel