So... sort of? Chocolatey keeps the chocolatey package files in C:\ProgramData\Chocolatey by default, that's part of how it maintains its own package registry of what's installed, etc.
Application installers from those packages may still be installing things into program files as well yeah
choco install nodejs i get a failure (HTTP 401) when it tries to start downloading the nodejs.install package. if i run nuget install nodejs everything works great. both chocolatey and nuget are using the same source and username/password. running a nuget install in the chocolatey lib directory followed by a choco install -f works since no packages are needed to be downloaded.
<copyright> element indicating that there is no copyright and the software is dedicated to the public domain or should the <copyright> element just be ommitted?
Using 7zip directly would also be a no go (assuming the package will be pushed to chocolatey.org), you should rather delete the unwanted files after they have been extracted to disk.
On a normal windows system (assuming that windows is installed on the SSD) you have quite a few write cycles already running on the SSD in idle state (just from windows itself).
If you actually use your system, you almost have constant write cycles happening on the SSD.
So basically, having a few extra write cycles because of the package would not be a noticable difference in the lifespan of the SSD.
I'm edited the original extension to include this dependency (KB2919355). This means packages which depend on this extension will need exempt right?
Yes that is likely.
I was trying to say if there is another, maybe better way, I would go for that, in which Verification exempt is not required.
Okay, Got it. Unfortunately at the moment there is not. The reason is that we support back to Windows 7 / PS 2 so we test on a system that has no updates installed so we can make sure that we don't miss any required for a package. Once Windows Server 2008 is no longer supported on Azure this will likely change.
