by

Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
ichooselife
@ichooselife
@vexx32 More questions lol- What is the code for the command line to find a specific package that installed in C:\ProgramData? Also, can a package be installed in both locations after install (C:\ProgramData and Programs & Features)?
Joel Sallow (/u/ta11ow)
@vexx32
programs and features is more a registry / listing than a location, apps can install anywhere and still be registered for programs and features if they write their registry keys correctly
not sure exactly what you're after with your first question there though, can you clarify a little? 🙂
ichooselife
@ichooselife
for the 2nd question, i should have said Program Files instead of Programs Features if that makes sense
Joel Sallow (/u/ta11ow)
@vexx32
oh gotcha.

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

ichooselife
@ichooselife
Oh OK, I got it now. Thanks for all your help with this.
Joel Sallow (/u/ta11ow)
@vexx32
no worries, happy to help! 😊
rgrwatson85
@rgrwatson85
first time poster here - wondering if anyone can get pointed in the right direction with an issue i am seeing with chocolatey and how it is using nuget. we are using Artifactory to host nuget/chocolatey feeds. an example is if i runchoco 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.
any ideas on what could possibly be causing this?
TheCakeIsNaOH
@TheCakeIsNaOH
Well, http 401 is unauthorized, so for troubleshooting, you could try enabling guest/anonymous access.
rgrwatson85
@rgrwatson85
Thank you for answering @TheCakeIsNaOH. This is unfortunately not something we can do due to corporate security controls.
With nuget being able to connect, I am wondering if there is some underlying issue with chocolatey.
TheCakeIsNaOH
@TheCakeIsNaOH
Chocolatey uses a very old version of NuGet, v2.x, so I suspect it could be related to changes in newer version of nuget.
rgrwatson85
@rgrwatson85
Interesting. So I have the chocolatey source pulled down. Do you know if it is possible to replace the nuget binary being used with mine?
TheCakeIsNaOH
@TheCakeIsNaOH
You could take a look at this PR- chocolatey/choco#1502
If you want to use choco's version of nuget directly for testing, it is available here in the repository- https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/blob/master/.nuget/NuGet.exe
rgrwatson85
@rgrwatson85
Ah, thanks! I will try to use that binary, and see if it bombs. My suspicion is that it will, and that the branch getting PR'd is going to work.
rgrwatson85
@rgrwatson85
@TheCakeIsNaOH - I ended up copying my nuget binary (version: 5.5.1.6542) into the .nuget folder and rebuilding. everything works now :)
Thanks again for taking the time!
TheCakeIsNaOH
@TheCakeIsNaOH
You are welcome, hopefully everything works with new version.
ichooselife
@ichooselife
hello, newbie here, I just uninstalled a package from chocolatey and I am getting this message: "Uninstall may not be silent (could not detect). Proceed? Y or N" , can someone be so kind to explain why the uninstall may not be silent...is this safe?
ichooselife
@ichooselife
is choc using the auto uninstaller to uninstall this package?
ichooselife
@ichooselife
nevermind...i figured it out lol
dgalbraith
@dgalbraith
I have an item that I am packaging at the minute that doesn't have a copyright - any copyright is explicitly removed through the use of an UNLICENSE. For the package definition would it be best practicse to have a <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?
n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
Hi, can I explicitly ignore files with Install-ChocolateyZipPackage or do I need to use 7zip.portable for that? (filter them out from e.g. *.zip package)
Kim J. Nordmo
@AdmiringWorm
@n3rd4i no you can not, you can select a specific folder inside the archive but that is about it.
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.
n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
@AdmiringWorm don't want to be to picky but problem with removing unwanted files is working but in case of SSD it would bring unnecesary write cycles.
Kim J. Nordmo
@AdmiringWorm
@n3rd4i that is really a minor nitpick.
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.
Rob Reynolds
@ferventcoder
@dgalbraith just mention exactly that in the copyright section. Let us know if package validator flags that so we can create an issue
Paul Broadwith
@pauby

@n3rd4i

@pauby oh, does this mean that KB2919355 is actually needed?

I would say so. The moddb.com website only supports TLS 1.2+.

image.png
n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
@pauby I should then include this dependency into the choco extension itself but will implicitly mean that lots of packages need exempt, of which I wuld suggest against ?
Paul Broadwith
@pauby

Yes you would need to include that and ask for an exemption.

but will implicitly mean that lots of packages need exempt, of which I wuld suggest against ?

Can you elaborate?

n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
@pauby I'm edited the original extension to include this dependency (KB2919355). This means packages which depend on this extension will need exempt right? I was trying to say if there is another, maybe better way, I would go for that, in which Verification exempt is not required.
@pauby how can you determine if a website requires TLS 1.2+ like you did for moddb.com ?
Paul Broadwith
@pauby
@n3rd4i I use SSL Labs
n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
@pauby ++
Paul Broadwith
@pauby

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.

n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
image.png
This means it supports also 1.1, but its yellow, what does that mean, deprecation notice?
Paul Broadwith
@pauby
Which domain is that for?
Paul Broadwith
@pauby
Ah. It will tell you on the report why it's yellow. I can't remember from memory what that is.
image.png
It may just be that warning.
n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
for now, but in the future it will not be supported I believe
Paul Broadwith
@pauby
Yeah. Green is good. Amber is a warning. I think that's all it is. As TLS 1.0 and 1.1 have been shown to have 'issues' it's just a warning to let you know it's supported.
n3rd4i
@n3rd4i
Ok, so I will mark all the necessary packages for exempt then, and move the dependency requirement in the extension.
I'm glad that finally I have (at least) a workaround for this