(nightly win64) 7z-delivery missing

[me444]

Hopefully the delivery of the zipped version (.7z) will not be omitted permanently
(the last one was from Sep 9; for Sep 10 and 11 only the setup executables can be found within the nightly win64 directory).

[mean]

Why dont you use the installer ?
Just copy it somewhere else afterward ?

[me444]

Hi mean,
(for all progs i prefer extractable versions)
For ADM i have a script for expanding and doing some customization, for instance
copying config files herein. That is lost when i simply copy.
Other, running the setup on an already existing target dir, it is not guaranteed that
i have a fresh and clean install, having not obsolete entities herein.
I'm always happy since years if a program offers an extractable install.

[me444]

Sorry for to ask again ...
obviously the nightly distribution using zip files (7z) has been stopped, for me without any obvious or communicated reason.
For me it had been a kind of portable version, and so a very good approach.
Please take into account also, the setup requires admin rights, and maybe not everybody has the wish (or possibilty) to use that.

[mean]

Let me think about it
The main reason is the work is duplicated between the zip & the installer

[me444]

Thanks Mean fo r your attention! I assumed that reason, and i understand it, of course.
Personally i'm able now (ugly reverse engineering) to extract files (and remove unnecessary ones) from the NSIS setup exe by script. But that's not the point.
My major concern is that we should support a portable version (containing all necessary files) and not to make it complicated without needs (there is not really stuff that needs to be written to the windows directories!). For many people portable versions are a Plus, it think.

[AQUAR]

I also would urge the return of the zip package in the nightly repository.
People are familiar with unzipping it to a preferred directory, and from there running ADM as a portable .

Universal extractor will let you extract all the files in the installer and you can use these as per the zip package IIRC.

[me444]

Yes, Universal Extractor can do that by 7z.exe (not all versions ...)
But provided support for unzipping to a preferred directory = local portablity is my primary vote.
By the way it is the easiest method to keep multiple versions in parallel for research reasons.
Delivery of a portable version is a Pro.

[AQUAR]

Been a long time user of ADM and always run them in portable mode on a non system partition.
Version's I try are always in their own folder and I have several installed that way.

I have extracted the files from the installer into the desired folder in much the same way as I would extract/unzip these files from the 7Z into the desired folder. Its not a real problem for Me but it might be for other end users.

IMHO, the automated process of creating the zipped file in the nightlies should be seen as support for the ADM user base, rather than as a duplication of work.

[mm0359]

I concur (for win32).
Executable is fine (for release) for (plain) end-user.
Archive is much easier to (daily) check nightlies (side by side, no uninstall (thus no reboot asked for)).

NB: Of course, the executable is needed (before release) to test the installation process/result itself.

[AQUAR]

Some of  us end users that regularly DL the latest nightly to trial obviously see the merit of the zip packaged ADM.
Just need to convince Mean that the extra effort is worth it from his end.

Maybe we need more end users to vote on retaining the zipped file.

[mean]

done, untested

[me444]

Hello Mean, that's a good news!
Tested the zip-file (now .zip instead of .7z supposingly because .zip is more common)
and the result is perfect for me just as before.
But which information is buried in the "263" particle in the zip files name (avidemux_r160918_win64Qt5_263.zip)?

[mean]

build number, in case there are several builds the same day with same source
(it happens when i tweak the build bots)

[me444]

Ok, understand ... but why the build number within the zip file name (and not the release id (2.6.14)),
and the release id in the exe file name (but not the build number)?
I assume that a certain diffference  of  the notation is kept intentionally  for to indicate: attention: both are not the same objects.
If this is not the case, you could also use the release id in the zip file name,
somthing like: avidemux_2.6.14_r160918_x64_263.zip or avidemux_2.6.14_r160918_x64Qt5_263.zip