Windows Installers

[daiyam]

Hi All,

Other than the .exe or the .zip installers, we have:

• .msi based on WiX v3

Currently, the .msi has several issues that I'm considering to discontinue it.

• broken update (missing executable)
• install on non-english os aren't correctly identified as a msi install -> .zip update
• still using WiX v3 while a v7 is available

There are also the newer format: .msix.

Should our time better spent on:

• creating the .msix installer
• updating the .msi to WiX v7
• or keeping only the .exe and .zip installers

[RokeJulianLockhart]

@daiyam, I've no interest in .exe and .zip installers, wherein an alternative exists. In that regard, I'd certainly prefer MSIX[Bundle] (although .AppInstaller is more applicable, outside of Chocolatey and WinGet, etcetera), ¹ although not every project manages to cope with its virtualisation.

Footnotes

1. issues/2576 ↩

[GitMensch]

.zip is mostly copied what we have (and I think disabling the auto-update in product.json afterwards), it is the most easy way to "try"a version - but it was never the question if that should go away...

I think both msi and msix are relevant - why not going with what seems to be the more easy version?

[RokeJulianLockhart]

why not going with what seems to be the more easy version?

@GitMensch, MSI isn't installable on S Mode, S Edition (or Nano Edition, albeit inapplicable here), unlike MSIX[Bundle], and its AppInstaller wrapper. ¹

Additionally, it's a lot better organised inside $Env:ProgramFiles\WindowsApps than what an MSI allows, and is consequently manageable via the .*-AppXPackage pwsh commandlets.

Footnotes

1. superuser.com/revisions/900102/1 ↩

[umitseyhan75]

I think the MSIX option should be the first priority especially if the vscodium won't have issues with virtualization and permission based apprach. In any case MSI and ZIP should be kept as a fallback option whereas EXE should disappear.