Re: Chocolatey Package for Nim?

[Kryptonius]

I second the request to get NIM package de-orphaned for Arch...

Re: Chocolatey Package for Nim?

[flyx]

With the same argument, it would also be necessary for Nim to have an official 
package for debian, Fedora, Arch, Nix, Homebrew…

I think maintaining packages is in better hands with those people who use the 
package managers.

Re: Chocolatey Package for Nim?

[moigagoo]

I maintain the [Nim 
package](https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/blob/master/bucket/nim.json) for 
[scoop](http://scoop.sh), which is another package manager for Windows.

Unlike Chocolatey, it installs software into homedir therefore does not require 
admin privileges. Its interface is similar to Homebrew's.

I tried both Chocolatey and Scoop and found Scoop much better. Of course, this 
is just my opinion, so you should try it yourself.

Re: Chocolatey Package for Nim?

[Tristano]

I think that it would have to be some kind of "official" package, maintained by 
the same group that maintain Nim releases — that is to guarantee that it 
doesn't get abandoned. I also have the impression that this would speed up the 
process of having Choco-packages updates approved sooner by the admins.

Possibly, maintaining the Choco package could be automated with some scripts — 
some strings changes, like version and download links. For Nim maintainers it 
should be possible to integrate it in the Nim release chain, having the new 
Choco package updated and pushed on a GitHub repo, and so on.

Re: Chocolatey Package for Nim?

[hcorion]

Yeah, the chocolatey package is unmaintanied by a 3rd party and has been for a 
while. You could file to go through the process to take over the package.

Chocolatey Package for Nim?

[Tristano]

I've Nim 0.15.2 announcement I've read that:

> For Windows we now provide zipfiles in addition to the NSIS based installer 
> which proves to be hard to maintain and after all these months still has 
> serious issues. So we encourage you download the .zip file instead of the 
> .exe file!

and in the download page:

> You can download an installer for both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows 
> below. Note that these installers have some known issues and so will unlikely 
> to be provided further in the future.

I was wondering ... it's been a while that I've installed Chocolotey and use 
ChocoloteyGUI to update a number of software packages which don't provide a 
self-updater — included some languages, like Ruby, Node.js, Go, and others.

I've found a Nim package on Chocolatey, but it hasn't been updated in a while, 
and it's still at Nim v.0.11.2:

[https://chocolatey.org/packages/nim](https://chocolatey.org/packages/nim)

But I think that the idea of maintaining an official Nim-Chocolatey package 
could be a good idea for Window versions of Nim.

The only issues at hand here would be:

  1. Who's going to create/maintain it
  2. Which default setting to use in a silent installation



As for point (1), I think what we need is that there should be either an 
"official" package (maintained by Nim devs) or at least a package which has the 
official blessing of Nim devs.

Point (2) is a bit more tricky though. I think that a Nim package should only 
install Nim, its docs, ecc. Aporia and MinGW should be taken care by the users. 
For example, I don't install MinGW, I use TDM-GCC (might be a bit old, but 
seems better configured).

Chocolatey does a good job at telling users there's a new version of the 
package, installing it silently and taking care of all the boring stuff.

What's the general view on this? And, does anyone know who created the Nim 
package linked above? The only info I've found is that it was maintained by a 
user called "pine613", but his GitHub account has been discontinued.

Anyhow, the counter on Nim-Chocolatey package says it was downloaded 117 time 
for Nim 0.10.2, and 106 times for Nim 0.11.2 -- a total of over 200 downloads, 
which is rather promising if you think it was a short-lived and unmaintained 
package.