One-get/Chocolatey versions vs scoop about extras

[deevus]

I suppose it depends on whether we trust that OneGet (chocolately) installs software the way that Scoop likes. I'm pretty sure it just happily pollutes your path for just about every install, whereas with Scoop: adding extra things to the user's path has to be explicit.

Not to mention the complication of Scoop having to support managing apps through OneGet in addition to its own management system. It is simple by design and I feel this would complicate matters.

[lukesampson]

Yes it's an interesting idea, but it does go slightly against the way Scoop was designed.

As @deevus said, I think One-Get/Chocolatey often just download and execute MSI installers, which can have a lot of side-effects (path pollution, registry entries, files placed in various places in file system), require admin UAC elevation, and don't always make things work immediately and nicely from the command line.

Scoop on the other hand is meant to prove that installing programs doesn't need to be so obscure. With Scoop you can usually see everything that's happening just by reading the manifest—usually just files are downloaded, extracted and linked into your command path. MSI installers are just treated as archives—the files are extracted and nothing is executed.

I realise this is a bit of an ideological stance, not just a pragmatic approach to installing things :)

But in a way, just wrapping the Chocolatey/One-Get package would not be enough information for Scoop, because even though Scoop does less work during installs, it's more explicit about what needs to be done, and I don't think that information is always present in Chocolatey.

Thanks for the idea though, and I'm glad to hear you're enjoying playing with the command line. Feel free to re-open this if we're missing something—I haven't looked at One-Get or Chocolatey for a while.