Using executables in the package's tools directory

May 7, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Would you ever put assemblies needed by (and only by) a .exe program in the tools folder?  Or is the expectation that any .exe in a NuGet package must be standalone?

May 7, 2011 at 8:30 PM

If you were to include an executable, it should have everything it needs to run. In other words, the rules of dependencies for tools are different than they are for dlls or other library items because you put the dll with everything else necessary, then construct and run it when you build your app. A tool on the other hand is on the already constructed end. The source that builds the tool has package dependencies, but the tool as an application package does not.

Does this make sense?

____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder

On May 7, 2011 2:13 PM, "afdavis" <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:
> From: afdavis
>
> Would you ever put assemblies needed by (and only by) a .exe program in the tools folder? Or is the expectation that any .exe in a NuGet package must be standalone?
>
>
May 7, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Yes.  I was thinking of the case where your executable has a dependency on some 3rd party library, so you can't build everything into the exe itself.  So everything would go in the tools dir, which is what I figured, but I just wanted to be sure.  Thank you.

May 9, 2011 at 10:22 PM
In the context of adding tools to packages, if you want a way for people to get to use those tools, chocolatey facilitates more of that application/tools concept. Where nuget (or vanilla nuget) is developer focused library packages, chocolatey nuget is application packages.

Here are some examples:

An idea of what you can do using chocolatey (watch the first minute and the last minute and a half): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hWOUL8roU

May 9, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Excellent.  I can think of several places I could use this.  Thanks.