|
Davyd McColl wrote: InnoSetup was easy, fast to install, free, etc, etc,
Maybe that is true.
However we do not use an UI to build installers, it's part of an automated process that is controlled by other "scripts". The advantage of such a process is that one can consistently inject/replace publication information into various components (exe, dll, msi ...) of the final product (like version number, file version, copy right, URLs, target market, configuration, etc ...) and had the generating "scripts" under version control ... The WIX's xml files are intermediate targets, it's eassier for us to produce ...
=== edit ===
OK, innoSetup is also script based. In fact I used Pascal for quite a while in the early days. I will have a closer look at it later
modified 15-Feb-19 12:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! I encourage looking a little deeper.
Look, if WIX does all that you want and makes you happy, then cool. I'm just saying that I spent a lot of time in "installer space" (because it was part of my primary job function at two places of work, so that's work over >5 years, with a gap in the middle) and WIX and InstallShield were a mission where InnoSetup wasn't.
InnoSetup also has tooling which targets a few different user groups, from text manipulation masters to competent programmers to people who just want to click their way through making an installer. Which is great, because sometimes I'm all three (:
And it's free.
And the resultant installers are fast and have the compression that you choose, so can be quite small.
Just give it a go, and if it doesn't deliver ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm still happy to choose it whenever I want an installer system.
|
|
|
|
|
I second WIX, it is a bit tedious. It works on a small install don't know about a complex one.
Got my site back up after my time in the woods!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I looked at WiX;
It might work for a simple installation, but for a large installation (23,000 files) it will be hard to maintain; at least create the first iteration, adding add the components/features/files.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda thought that would be the case.
Got my site back up after my time in the woods!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I've not used them myself, but WiX includes command line tools to "harvest" the details of the files to be included, that can be built into your workflow.
|
|
|
|
|
We use PARAFFIN to generate WiX source code for thousands of files. It can even be used to add files later without disturbing the existing WiX code.
|
|
|
|
|
Installed the VS 2019 preview and noticed it has a 'built in' installer project type (Setup Project) - just poking at it now as your post reminded me of it.
Had played with WIX VS plugin and was intending to use that (for what is a pretty simple install) but must say I get a little confused by some of the WIX dialog specifications/properties. This new thing might be worth a look.
[EDIT] My bad - old news - and judging by the font on the dialogs this goes back a ways in some form or another. dang. [/EDIT]
modified 14-Feb-19 19:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Deveaux wrote: Installed the VS 2019 preview and noticed it has a 'built in' installer project type (Setup Project)
Didn't it always? I'm pretty sure that a setup maker was in VS as far back as VS3 or VS4 -- but it didn't work as well as inno setup, so I stopped using it, and never looked for it again (so maybe they took it out and have put it back).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You could be right - wondered about that - I hadn't seen it though.
[Edit]
I think you're right - but weren't those extensions Installshield trojans? 
[/edit]
modified 14-Feb-19 18:52pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Deveaux wrote: weren't those extensions Installshield trojans?
Could be. I do remember people complaining about something like that (but I've read so many complaints about so many products, on the Interwebs, that it's tricky to remember which was about what).
And as I say, as soon as I saw how easy (and logical) it was to knock up a script with inno, I never even thought about the built-in one again.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
But no msi, right? hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote:
What are you using to package your software?
Back when I was doing that sort of thing, I used Wise. It was easy to use and did the job. Not an option these days.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Wise was the easiest and best of the bunch to use. Plus it could be run on the command line (batch file). Wonder whatever happened to it?
Thought - Perhaps when a product is no longer supported commercially it should be legally put into the public domain, rather than leaving users high and dry?
|
|
|
|
|
Have anyone used WixSharp? I've used it only once on a small project and it was simple to use. But I cannot say anything more.
|
|
|
|
|
Using Ghost Installer myself. Dunno if it's THE BEST EVA, but it works.
There's also ClickOnce (which is actually what MS offers, that's integrated into Visual Studio).
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another vote for Inno Setup[^]. Basic setups are handled using the built-in facilities, starting from a text file script. It includes competent scripting support based on Pascal. For really heavy lifting you can call out to DLL's. Scripts can be compiled from the command line. It receives pretty steady support from its author.
As others have mentioned, Inno Setup's only lack is that it doesn't support MSI. For my money, that's a benefit. MSI and the Windows Installer are over-engineered and poorly documented and supported for the task they are meant to accomplish. Most of the installer-building apps based around MSI are just expensive lipstick on a pig.
You mentioned you're using InstallShield. Be advised that they are #2 on my list of development teams first-against-the-wall-when-the-revolution-comes. We bought their 'international' edition for over $1K a little over ten years ago after the salesperson told us that it supported most European languages, along with Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. Come to find out, the international edition only supports English. You had to pay an additional $500 for each language you wanted to localize your install to. We chucked those ripoff f***ers and went with Inno Setup.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I've used .msi installers forever, but had to give them up a few years ago because of their basic clumsiness, their lack of bigcorp support and the fact that they throw security principles to the wind. Advanced Installer was my last one used.
It took me more than 3 years to develop my distributed installer called Hiveware. It overcomes the security issues and the ease-of-use problem as the user only sees the asked-for app functionality. The platform was finished in December, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
Another vote for Advanced Installer. It has an unbelievable range of options but the defaults are sensible, and support for occasional bugs is excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
My first question is, what about this application cannot be delivered over the internet?
Make it a webapp, just deploy it to servers you control.
|
|
|
|
|
We have a client/server WinForms application. We use a standard VS setup project to create an MSI for our initial installs, but the application is "self updating". We upload new EXEs and DLLs into our SQL Server database. The application looks for new components when it launches and when it finds new ones, downloads them to a temporary location, launches an "updater" EXE, and kills itself. The updater moves the new EXEs/DLLs from the temp location to the application folder and re-launches the main EXE. Works like a champ.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto! We do the same, only using an installer (InstallShield) for the initial installation. After that, the application handles any updates to itself and associated files. Of course there are manual update mechanisms in place just in case we put out an update that breaks the updater! 
We also use home-brewed installers for add-on modules using 7-Zip self-extracting libs to create 'smart' installers that detect where the payload needs to go and optionally (on a first install) prompt for a password. They also clean up after themselves.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I use InstallAware. It's pricey, but does everything easily. We have several complex installs and lots of files, so for us it was worth it.
Bond
Do everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
InstallShield is still the reigning king for us - 30 years and counting
Do you use InstallShield Standalone Build for CI?
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, we have a scheduled task that runs every morning to build the installers (IsCmdBld).
The main issue we have with InstallShield is that its something that is hard to maintain (people add/remove files from the distributions but there's only one of us that can update the installshield project).
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
