I downloaded the offline installer for Qt5 from here. The developer and designer tools are automatically selected for installation, but Qt 5.13.0 is not. I would imagine I need to install that, but the size is 20.49 GB. Am I supposed to install this?
Is there a specific reason you want to use the offline installer? It is recommended to use the online installers, which give you much more control over which modules and kits you want to install :
We recommend you use the Qt Online Installer for first time
installations and the Qt Maintenance Tool for changes to a current
install.
Your link is not shown in your question. On the official Qt website
They say that the size should be less than 3.3 GB. So if you realy want to use the offline installer, you should take that road.
Related
Assuming that I have a script that will be run on a clean build server with Nuget.exe installed on it, what is the best way to programatically determine the path for where NuGet.exe is installed?
Is there a way to infer its location by going through NuGet.targets, or reading some sort of external config file, or following some sort of convention?
Note: The closest question I've seen so far is this one that points to where NuGet can be downloaded, but I'm not interested in downloading NuGet manually. I need a way to determine where it is installed, but I'm not sure if there's a convention that I can follow to determine where it might be installed.
In general, nuget.exe is not shipped with any product. Most people need to manually download it.
The only exception is for people who install Mono. Mono ships nuget.exe, but that's generally limited to people developing on Linux or Mac. But people who use .NET Core exclusively don't need Mono, even on Linux/Mac, so they won't have it either.
Few developers on Windows install Mono, so chances are you don't have a nuget.exe on your system unless you downloaded it yourself, or someone checked it into a repo that you cloned.
I am sorry for this stupid question, but I really need to install version 3.9 of the Wix Toolset. I can only find version 3.10 and 3.11. There is a link on the website to download older archives (also for 3.9rc2), but in this 1.2Gb file I cannot find an installer.
Please do not tell me to install the latest version, I have my own reasons for 3.9 that goes beyond the scope of this question. Any help is truely appreciated.
I should leave this for the WiX guys to answer, but maybe you are very busy and just need to test something?
Building it yourself from the sources isn't an option is it? https://github.com/wixtoolset/wix3/releases (towards the bottom, click the blue image - it says "Show 5 other tags" here). Sounds painful to work that out...
The 3.9 binaries seem to be here (looks like R1): https://github.com/continuoustests/ContinuousTests/tree/master/Installer/ContinuousTests.WixInstaller/wix39-binaries, but not as an installer file. Maybe you just need to test something quickly? If so, obviously please accept your own risk here, I am not sure what these files really are.
I hope I haven't linked to something that is problematic, just delete the whole answer if this should be the case (i.e the binaries pointed to should not ever be used - for some reason, etc...).
I recently had a need to get the old wix38.exe installer for legacy project maintenance, and it was a pain. Tom Blodget's comment above was the key on how to find the required file from the CodePlex archive.
Because there are likely to be other people in the future who require access to these things, I've created a github repository https://github.com/CasaDeRobison/wixtoolset-codeplex that includes the state of the git repository from the CodePlex archive and also makes available the various files from those releases at https://github.com/CasaDeRobison/wixtoolset-codeplex/tree/master/archived-stable-versions
Hopefully others will find this useful as well so that we don't all have to collectively puzzle this out if we have a need for this older software.
How can I create an automated Installer for a program that has a regular Installer with questions like:
Install Directory,
Accepting License,
Creating Icon on Desktop
etc...
Assuming that I am OK with building an Automated Installer for every program I want to separately, Or i want to put files in a Self Extracting Archive and run the Installer after unpacking.
Do I need a third party program for it? Should I use Command Prompt? Do I need to learn Lua? (I'm learning C#)
EDIT:
To clarify I'll use an example:
Let's say i wrote a program but that program has a requirement, like
DirectX, or Adobe Air, or Maxthon Browser.
I wrote my program in such a way that I have to be sure that that is
installed in a very specific Drive/Folder on the PC or with some
specific preferences/parameters.
I include an installer for this program, but I want to specify where
it gets installed on the PC and with what parameters.
Preferably Installing this requirement right after or during the
Installation/Extraction of my own program.
I'm looking for a way to be able to run the Installer of any given program and navigate through the install wizard of it with out the user having to/being able to change the settings I need (with the foreknowledge and permission of the user of course).
It doesn't need to be silent install or anything.
I have rewritten my answer.
Your mentioned setups requirements seem very common to me for the class of installation programs (setups) and not at all unusual.
Generally you have two options:
You write everything on your own, you create the install dialogs, the way the settings are saved, and so on. Then you are fine with C# (or any other language).
It is quite uncommon to do so, because it is time consuming, and you are reinventing things which have been solved in standard ways several times. Moreover you will fall in common setup error traps which are maybe already captured (or at minimum documented) if using tools.
If you want to use a tool, it is your first decision, if you want a tool based on MSI (Windows Installer) or not. MSI is the most powerful and most industrial-accepted setup technology in Windows, but it is a quite complicated matter, and no tool can shield this 100% from you. Google for WiX (Open Source) or InstallShield as starting points for MSI tools but there are of course more.
Some tools are already integrated or integrateable in Visual Studio for example.
Selfextracting tools are a starting point, but the following tools offer far more and are a good intermediate way between the extreme points SFX and MSI:
InnoSetup
(has also a home here on SO).
Nullsoft Scriptable Install System (NSIS) on SourceForge
One self extracting program in Windows I want to mention, because it is not widely known, that "IEXPRESS.exe" is already included in the OS.
Concerning your special question of navigating through the install wizard:
Every mentioned tool has ways to save install settings and of course is deciding which settings are changeable by the user part of the 1*1 of setup creation. With the tools you can design the install dialogs like you want consisting of the parts you want.
I hope I got your point.
P.S. While most tools have kind of a scripting language or something similar included, you are normally free to extend the installation process with your own actions written in nearly every programming language you like.
Firstly, I saw some topics about these two but weren't my answer.
I'm looking for a good FPC(Free Pascal Compiler) IDE on GNU/Linux.
There are some IDE's like Lazarus and CodeTyphon. I need suggestion to choose one of those.
I've tried Lazarus once but all windows was separated. It looks messy and not interesting.
I would like to know what are the distinguishes between these two ?
I would like to know advantages / disadvantages each of those. Thank you
CodeTyphon is a distro of Lazarus, like Ubuntu and Debian are distros of Linux.
CodeTyphon comes with a large package of components and plugins, that otherwise you would have to google and download and install.
CodeTyphon have their own idea what are stable versions and what are not stable yet for both of FPC (compiler) and Lazarus(IDE). Whether their assessment is better or worse than upstream's Lazarus Team's, I don't know.
What about one-single-window plugin, it is work-in-progress and it doesn't seems to me it is ready for production use, no matter would you get it as part of CT or download and add it to vanilla Lazarus. However maybe it better works on Linux than on Windows, I don't know.
There were however issues with code legality in CT grande bundle. It is widely believed that Orca (if I remember the name) violates copyrights of glScene/vgScene, which also happened in early Delphi FMX releases but was fixed by EMBA later. There also were disputes in FPC forums/wiki about CodeTyphon pirating some open-source components. See answer by Peter Dunne below.
Your question is akin to asking the difference between Linux and Ubuntu. Lazarus is an IDE/component library, based on FreePascal (FPC). And CodeTyphon is a distribution of Lazarus and FPC. So CodeTyphon is just one way to install a functioning installation of Lazarus.
Lazarus uses the same floating window design as older versions of Delphi. Installing from CodeTyphon won't change that.
Myself and several friends highlighted several licensing issues with codetyphon
most of which could have been corrected by sourcing the included files from known good source and ensuring the correct license headers were included
PirateLogic refused to correct the issues which means they are using code in direct violation of the original license terms
The fact its open source code does not change the fact they are pirating the code by not including the correct license even after the issue was highlighted
I also found several instances of copyright code included which appears to be proprietary and not FOSS at all
They also changed the path & file names on some libraries so that source is no longer compatible with standard lazarus/component installs
This in my view is totally illogical
These 2 factors heavily undermine what was potentially the best FPC/Lazarus distro
Hardly professional
Lazarus can be a daunting installation process due to it's nature as a cross compiling environment. You don't just download an installer and click ok. A typical "installation" is actually a bootstrap FPC compiler doing a three-pass compilation of an "install". There are plenty of good installation scripts/methods from the official Lazarus/FPC team and in the community for a . But, understandably, the installation process is a skill in itself.
CodeTyphon is a a different/separate branch of an installer system, which is more of a utility suite/tools/third party code compilation library. If you want the simplest installation experience go with CodeTyphon. It has the nice graphical front end for managing the compiler. You can conveniently do the fancy stuff like build "cross-compilers" for almost every "target" operating system out there. It also is jam packed with hundreds of the best components/libraries pre-installed. It is a very actively maintained project and very professional. A whole lot of work is done for you.
Even if you want to be learn the low level compiler capabilities, CodeTyphon is a good place to start. It is written in FCP/Lazarus and is open source. Simply study it as "working demo app" and the other info on the compiler details. If you crash it, at least you don't have to learn to climb the hill. You get to get to start from the top and lose control on the way down. Start from scratch (and a three hour reinstallation) Hahaha
Lazarus also has a package "AnchorDock" which allows you to dock all the windows into one. Either install the anchor dock design package after installing Lazarus, or install Lazarus using the script at getlazarus.org which will do it for you.
Our C++/QT desktop application for Mac, Windows and Linux needs an installer. I'd rather we have a single installer for all three platforms. I do know it's a bit tricky, I guess what I wanted ask is if a framework already exists for that (Java maybe?).
I'd really like to avoid having to write three different installers.
The link that Kyle mentions is pretty comprehensive, but I wanted to provide a bit more of information about InstallBuilder for Qt (Disclaimer, I am one of the developers) since most of the cross platform installation programs referenced there are Java-based. This requires bundling a JRE, etc. and adds a significant overhead that is not required with a Qt-based installer, like ours. It is able to generate wizard-like executable installers for all platforms from a single project file as well as native packages such as DEB and RPM. If you ship your software in DVDs, you can create a single multi-platform DVD that shares data across platforms but still have native launchers.
Having said this, since your application is Desktop-oriented, for the particular case of OS X if it does not require complex installation you may be better off creating a .app file and package it inside a DMG. Users can then drag the file directly to the Applications folder.
Finally, I wanted to mention that InstallBuilder is commercial, but we offer free licenses for open source projects and discounts for small development firms.
IzPack rocks: http://izpack.org. It is truly crossplatform, very lightweight, easy to master, and produces excellent results.
After fully integrating both Izpack and InstallBuilder into our builds (using Windows, OSX, and Ubuntu 14 build servers for testing purposes), I will say I believe InstallBuilder is well worth the money (and free for open source projects according to wojciechka).
Izpack is a bit slow, a bit large if you need to package a JVM, and has an amateurish user interface. Version 5 (release candidate 3) was also not generating uninstallers properly. That said, as long as you use a 4.x version and require a JVM anyway, it may be enough for your needs. The extension interface is not terribly easy to deal with, but is almost infinitely flexible. The Windows installers do not register with the Control Panel uninstaller list.
InstallBuilder has a great, fast UI in the produced installers and has a serviceable UI for creating installers. The XML is pretty easy to deal with, too. Downloads are about as small as possible. It also includes nice hooks for doing all sorts of custom stuff easily. The only slightly annoying thing I ran into was that the Windows server required that I manually add some configuration to set executable bits on the other systems' packages (other systems didn't require this configuration).
Note: I was using the three-platform version of standard InstallBuilder (not InstallBuilder for QT).