wixsharp VS au

I can recommend Wixsharp (https://github.com/oleg-shilo/wixsharp), you no longer have to learn the insane wix xml syntax to create an installer.

Also try wix# (https://github.com/oleg-shilo/wixsharp) - it makes things much easier

Windows: The Microsoft-recommended way is .msi files but, if you're not willing to pay for something like InstallShield or a professional "How to use WiX XML course", making them is going to be painful even with something like WiXSharp, so my advice is to offer a Zip file and an Inno Setup installer. (Which things like Chocolatey can build on)

Wix# is better, but still not as easy, and it depends on .NET, which makes it a hassle to get set up in Wine compared to how, being written in Delphi and using itself as an installer, Inno Setup is practically Rust-like in how easy it is to set up in Wine.

If you really want to bundle a compiler, my advice would be to just use an installer like Inno Setup or NSIS or the WiX Toolset via WixSharp and have it either download or bundle the installer for the compiler.

Speaking of MSI, I'd suggest using Wix# instead of WiX directly.

The functionality in the msilib module is somewhat low-level anyway (it basically just opens the database for you and leaves the arcane incantations required for doing anything as an exercise for the reader) so it probably wouldn't be hugely difficult to replace it with ctypes calling msi.dll directly.

If I were to replace my msilib-based installer, I would migrate to Wix# [1], a fantastic high-level wrapper for WiX that lets you express your installer in a few lines of C# (and then generates the thousands of lines of XML that WiX needs, but you don't need to touch it). I wouldn't have used msilib if I had known about Wix# at the time.

[1] https://github.com/oleg-shilo/wixsharp

Adding that folks should look into using WixSharp especially if there is a need to create a more customizable UI for the installer. The instructions for building the installer is all written in C# including any custom actions required by your installer project.

I created au framework for chocolatey (Windows OS) and on packages that are cross platform, it made choco above Arch on freshness: https://github.com/majkinetor/au

Having said that, you may want to look into the source code for each package you're interested in. Many of them use the Chocolatey Automatic Package Updater Module, and had to solve this exact problem in some way to help automate updates. I've seen approaches varying from scraping a web page, querying an API, or even downloading the binary and looking at its FileVersionInfo struct.

There are a lot of packages out there where you can customise the install location. If you want to automatically fetch from suppliers and create your own packages then you probably want to look at the automatic package updater with AppVeyor: https://github.com/majkinetor/au/wiki

> I mean, it is a chocolatey, because they allow multiple packaged for the same software.

I think this is more healthy then having one with maintainers refusing to do stuff you may need. The real thing would be for vendors releasing packages but we are far from that in Windows land.

> I meant that packages are often not updated by the maintainers.

Yeah, that was the problem far more before then today. I created AU to solve that issue [1].

[1]: https://github.com/majkinetor/au