chocolatey-community

chocolatey-packages

PowerShell2017–2023

chocolatey-community / chocolatey-packages

chocolatey-packages

Chocolatey Community Maintainers Team Packages - packages that are managed and maintained by core community team for community package repository (https://community.chocolatey.org/packages)

Explore on GitHub Read Hacker News discussions

4Distinct people

6Mentions

0Explicit recommenders

477GitHub stars

REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Chocolatey Community Maintainers Team Packages - packages that are managed and maintained by core community team for community package repository (https://community.chocolatey.org/packages)

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year6 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2017-11-27 22:43:39 UTC to 2023-11-08 07:25:11 UTC.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges

UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
Period	Start (UTC)	End (exclusive, UTC)	Mentions	Comments
2017	2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	3	3
2018	2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0
2019	2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	1
2020	2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0
2021	2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0
2022	2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	1
2023	2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	1

What Hacker News says

6 sources

majkinetor·Nov 8, 2023

> Open source is full of instances where the person packaging the software is not the original developer. How is that different. You seem to compare about method/language used. > MSI (and MSIX) are complex databases of pain, but they absolutely know how to uninstall everything that they are told to install and that machinery is well tested now across way too many Windows versions. They can do whatever developer wanted to do. Otherwise, we wouldn't have those gazilions of special cleaners/uninstallers we have > My experience was very few of the packages I used did that and almost all revolved around some ad hoc Invoke-WebRequest It was the case in the history, 5+ years back. Now big number of packages are not like that. I personally do not use non-embedded packages for office work. See https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-pac

Read the rest

kages/... > Some people have built custom sources for winget to help with CI/CD scenarios Yeah, you can fix anything. I keep rejected choco packages on my github too. > Out-of-the-box caching/CDN for the primary public sources is still an active discussion, I wouldn't use CDN, its just one dependency replaced by another. Cashing is irrelevant if you do not embed the software. > but the neat thing is that it is an active discussion out on GitHub so that you can directly voice your "serious" use cases You can have active discussion on GitHub with choco guys. I am sure results in winget case are not going to be much different. In my experience, way more pain than being useful. So, to recap, the setup is almost the same with choco being small company and MS not. Choco is vastly better with features. I am moving to winget for various other reasons, that I won't talk about here and it has nothing to do with the tech.

In The Never-Updaters: Why Some People Refuse to Download New Software

majkinetor·Feb 6, 2022

Meh... Here is the exact case you mention, just WAY worst. This is something I did for chocolatey community: https://gist.github.com/choco-bot/a14b1e5bfaf70839b338eb1ab7... This page is report of the PowerShell framework I developed mostly in first year of development (https://github.com/majkinetor/au) that checks ~250 web sites for updates on various software. Today it has 6 errors and usually never much more. On my own location I keep ~60 packages and I I tackle errors maybe once a year. Stuff just work, and you rarely have to visit, otherwise I would be involved entire day into this and I am not, while those packages have many millions of users. Now I spend almost 0 time maintaining packages and I am one of the top choco package owners. Check out the options used, some of which make it so robust: https://github.com/chocolatey-community

Read the rest

/chocolatey-packages/... > It’s sources keep changing frequently, robust automation here is probably a research project and simple automation is orders of magnitude more bang for buck. Even if the source changes frequently its better to automate. Its not when it keeps changing daily or more then that. By automating you learn something new, so it pays more for your experience. Manually working every day the same thing (that may move around) doesn't involve complex thinking and is just waste of time.

In Ask HN: Best books on managing software complexity?

gregmac·Jan 22, 2019

I really like that the manifest files are just single JSON files. Chocolatey packages are pretty complex [1], and even worse is the automatic system [2] used for building the main packages [3], which tries to keep everything updated. There's a very steep learning curve if you want to contribute and fix packages. Contrast to the simple manifests in the scoop main bucket [4] and it's looking much easier. There's some variables there for auto-updating that aren't immediately intuitive, but it doesn't look nearly as complex as chocolatey. Between the extras [5] and other community buckets [6] this is looking pretty compelling -- can't believe I've never heard of it before. [1] https://chocolatey.org/docs/create-packages [2] https://chocolatey.org/docs/automatic-packages [3] https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/tr... [4] h

Read the rest

ttps://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/tree/master/bucket [5] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop-extras/tree/master/buck... [6] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/blob/master/buckets.jso...

In A command-line installer for Windows

dsp1234·Nov 27, 2017

What is your take on me posting the following on my blog: "wget https://www.telerik.com/docs/default-source/fiddler/fiddlers... && fiddlersetup.exe" redistribute their packages Chocolately wasn't redistributing the Fiddler packages[0]. [0] - https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/bl...

In Telerik gets Fiddler unlisted from Chocolatey

dsp1234·Nov 27, 2017

do not have a public download url The URL in question[0] provides a 200 response and an executable without requiring authorization/authentication. That's a particularly weird definition of "not public" [0] - https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/co... https://www.telerik.com/docs/default-source/fiddler/fiddlers...

In Telerik gets Fiddler unlisted from Chocolatey

sheetjs·Nov 27, 2017

The related github issue https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/is... has more context: > Telerik reached out and is asking that the Fiddler package be removed as it is giving direct access to a download location they no longer show on the site. Since they have an information gateway to receive information prior to download, they have asked that we remove the package so that folks obtain the downloads directly from them.

In Telerik gets Fiddler unlisted from Chocolatey