Bizarre idea: creating our own extension to msi for cross-platform installers
Just a crazy thought, but... What if we created a standard for passing some sort of wine-specific metadata in an MSI file? Windows would ignore it, but application developers could use it to include some helpful Linux-specific Wine instructions like what windows version to use, a custom .desktop file, or even instructions to install into a completely independent Wine prefix. This way, a single .msi file could be a true universal installer for both Windows machines and Linux machines. Moreover, there'd be less of a need to create custom Wine packages for applications like Picassa since a lot of that functionality would be abstracted into Wine itself. Thoughts? Thanks, Scott Ritchie
Am 27.07.2008 um 10:39 schrieb Scott Ritchie:
This way, a single .msi file could be a true universal installer for both Windows machines and Linux machines.
This is a good idea. However, if developers intentionally develop for Wine they can easily go a step further and build a native Linux (rpm, apt) package, even if they link against Wine libraries. The later will always have the better user experience as it integrates better into Linux distribution mechanisms and (optionally) frees from Windows' shortcomings. I doubt vendors will actively support (= be responsible for failures) installing apps with/in Wine. Even if they allow it or help fixing Wine bugs, this will always be a small but important niche. my $0.02 MarKus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/
2008/7/27 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>:
Just a crazy thought, but...
What if we created a standard for passing some sort of wine-specific metadata in an MSI file? Windows would ignore it, but application developers could use it to include some helpful Linux-specific Wine instructions like what windows version to use, a custom .desktop file, or even instructions to install into a completely independent Wine prefix.
This way, a single .msi file could be a true universal installer for both Windows machines and Linux machines. Moreover, there'd be less of a need to create custom Wine packages for applications like Picassa since a lot of that functionality would be abstracted into Wine itself.
Thoughts?
That sounds interesting. The main MSI data is essentially just a database. Other people provide their own extensions, for example, InstallShield have their own extensions to support self-registration of DLL's via (something like) _IISSelfReg and _IISSelfUnReg tables. I don't see why we can't add things like X11Desktop tables and the like. @Markus: It would be easier for Windows-specific vendors to update MSI files than it would for them to learn, support and test package manager-based installs. Also, native Linux packages don't have support for things like registering COM components, adding registry data and other Windows-specific tasks. How many people will add support for this, I don't know. Maybe this is something the CrossOver team could do as part of their migration/support service for vendors ^_^. - Reece
What if we created a standard for passing some sort of wine-specific metadata in an MSI file? Windows would ignore it, but application developers could use it to include some helpful Linux-specific Wine instructions like what windows version to use, a custom .desktop file, or even instructions to install into a completely independent Wine prefix.
Thoughts? Hm. I sort of like and dislike the idea at the same time
Regarding desktop integration with win32 apps is concerned, I think those problems should be fixed in Wine. I think all the things we need to set up the shortcuts, filetypes, etc. properly are provided by the Windows app as-is. Installing into a different wineprefix won't work, I think. By the time you have msi started up, a wineprefix decision is done already. What would be cool though, is if Wine's msi could install a completely Wine-independent native Linux application(or, install a Winelib app that brings its own Wine). That way one could build an universal package that contains a Win32 and native Linux app at the same time.
Stefan Dösinger wrote:
What if we created a standard for passing some sort of wine-specific metadata in an MSI file? Windows would ignore it, but application developers could use it to include some helpful Linux-specific Wine instructions like what windows version to use, a custom .desktop file, or even instructions to install into a completely independent Wine prefix.
Thoughts? Hm. I sort of like and dislike the idea at the same time
Regarding desktop integration with win32 apps is concerned, I think those problems should be fixed in Wine. I think all the things we need to set up the shortcuts, filetypes, etc. properly are provided by the Windows app as-is.
A custom desktop file is necessarily a difference between a Linux and Windows system. Like, for instance, having the program under Start->Programs->Company Foo->Bar Program under windows but having it under Applications->Games-Bar under Linux.
Installing into a different wineprefix won't work, I think. By the time you have msi started up, a wineprefix decision is done already.
This is solvable though, if it matters.
What would be cool though, is if Wine's msi could install a completely Wine-independent native Linux application(or, install a Winelib app that brings its own Wine). That way one could build an universal package that contains a Win32 and native Linux app at the same time.
One nice advantage of msi-shipped apps over linux packages is that they easily install into a user's home directory on all distributions (or, indeed, even on OSX and BSD) without root access. Thanks, Scott Ritchie
participants (4)
-
Markus Hitter -
Reece Dunn -
Scott Ritchie -
Stefan Dösinger