Does chocolatey allow to have multiple versions of same packages side by side?
As example, I am looking to have multiple versions of same package present on my machine, and switch active version without having to re-download it from chocolatey/nuget server. To take this further, ideally, I'd also want to have sets of package versions (e.g. defined in several chocolatey .config files as per https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/CommandsInstall#packagesconfig), and switch between those configs with minimal overhead, although if package is missing locally, of course it would need to be downloaded). Does chocolatey allow for this kind of mechanism, and if not - what is the closest that I can get to it? Is this better managed with switching default package source, and have each source have an appropriate version as latest?
chocolatey
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
add a comment |
As example, I am looking to have multiple versions of same package present on my machine, and switch active version without having to re-download it from chocolatey/nuget server. To take this further, ideally, I'd also want to have sets of package versions (e.g. defined in several chocolatey .config files as per https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/CommandsInstall#packagesconfig), and switch between those configs with minimal overhead, although if package is missing locally, of course it would need to be downloaded). Does chocolatey allow for this kind of mechanism, and if not - what is the closest that I can get to it? Is this better managed with switching default package source, and have each source have an appropriate version as latest?
chocolatey
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
add a comment |
As example, I am looking to have multiple versions of same package present on my machine, and switch active version without having to re-download it from chocolatey/nuget server. To take this further, ideally, I'd also want to have sets of package versions (e.g. defined in several chocolatey .config files as per https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/CommandsInstall#packagesconfig), and switch between those configs with minimal overhead, although if package is missing locally, of course it would need to be downloaded). Does chocolatey allow for this kind of mechanism, and if not - what is the closest that I can get to it? Is this better managed with switching default package source, and have each source have an appropriate version as latest?
chocolatey
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
As example, I am looking to have multiple versions of same package present on my machine, and switch active version without having to re-download it from chocolatey/nuget server. To take this further, ideally, I'd also want to have sets of package versions (e.g. defined in several chocolatey .config files as per https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/CommandsInstall#packagesconfig), and switch between those configs with minimal overhead, although if package is missing locally, of course it would need to be downloaded). Does chocolatey allow for this kind of mechanism, and if not - what is the closest that I can get to it? Is this better managed with switching default package source, and have each source have an appropriate version as latest?
chocolatey
chocolatey
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
asked Feb 3 at 20:29
JoeJoe
345149
345149
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Have a look at the documentation for the install command here:
https://chocolatey.org/docs/commands-install
Specifically, here:
-m, --sxs, --sidebyside, --side-by-side, --allowmultiple, --allow-multiple, --allowmultipleversions, --allow-multiple-versions
AllowMultipleVersions - Should multiple versions of a package be installed? Defaults to false.
So yes, it is possible to have multiple versions of the same package installed, however, it depends on "what" exactly is happening in the package, and the underlying installer, if this will actually result in two installations that will work independently of each other.
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
Even though you can, it's technically not recommended. The better thing to do is to have a package name with a major version in it, similar to the ruby debian packages.
– ferventcoder
Feb 4 at 18:00
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1401661%2fdoes-chocolatey-allow-to-have-multiple-versions-of-same-packages-side-by-side%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Have a look at the documentation for the install command here:
https://chocolatey.org/docs/commands-install
Specifically, here:
-m, --sxs, --sidebyside, --side-by-side, --allowmultiple, --allow-multiple, --allowmultipleversions, --allow-multiple-versions
AllowMultipleVersions - Should multiple versions of a package be installed? Defaults to false.
So yes, it is possible to have multiple versions of the same package installed, however, it depends on "what" exactly is happening in the package, and the underlying installer, if this will actually result in two installations that will work independently of each other.
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
Even though you can, it's technically not recommended. The better thing to do is to have a package name with a major version in it, similar to the ruby debian packages.
– ferventcoder
Feb 4 at 18:00
add a comment |
Have a look at the documentation for the install command here:
https://chocolatey.org/docs/commands-install
Specifically, here:
-m, --sxs, --sidebyside, --side-by-side, --allowmultiple, --allow-multiple, --allowmultipleversions, --allow-multiple-versions
AllowMultipleVersions - Should multiple versions of a package be installed? Defaults to false.
So yes, it is possible to have multiple versions of the same package installed, however, it depends on "what" exactly is happening in the package, and the underlying installer, if this will actually result in two installations that will work independently of each other.
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
Even though you can, it's technically not recommended. The better thing to do is to have a package name with a major version in it, similar to the ruby debian packages.
– ferventcoder
Feb 4 at 18:00
add a comment |
Have a look at the documentation for the install command here:
https://chocolatey.org/docs/commands-install
Specifically, here:
-m, --sxs, --sidebyside, --side-by-side, --allowmultiple, --allow-multiple, --allowmultipleversions, --allow-multiple-versions
AllowMultipleVersions - Should multiple versions of a package be installed? Defaults to false.
So yes, it is possible to have multiple versions of the same package installed, however, it depends on "what" exactly is happening in the package, and the underlying installer, if this will actually result in two installations that will work independently of each other.
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
Have a look at the documentation for the install command here:
https://chocolatey.org/docs/commands-install
Specifically, here:
-m, --sxs, --sidebyside, --side-by-side, --allowmultiple, --allow-multiple, --allowmultipleversions, --allow-multiple-versions
AllowMultipleVersions - Should multiple versions of a package be installed? Defaults to false.
So yes, it is possible to have multiple versions of the same package installed, however, it depends on "what" exactly is happening in the package, and the underlying installer, if this will actually result in two installations that will work independently of each other.
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
answered Feb 4 at 10:35
Gary Ewan ParkGary Ewan Park
892711
892711
Even though you can, it's technically not recommended. The better thing to do is to have a package name with a major version in it, similar to the ruby debian packages.
– ferventcoder
Feb 4 at 18:00
add a comment |
Even though you can, it's technically not recommended. The better thing to do is to have a package name with a major version in it, similar to the ruby debian packages.
– ferventcoder
Feb 4 at 18:00
Even though you can, it's technically not recommended. The better thing to do is to have a package name with a major version in it, similar to the ruby debian packages.
– ferventcoder
Feb 4 at 18:00
Even though you can, it's technically not recommended. The better thing to do is to have a package name with a major version in it, similar to the ruby debian packages.
– ferventcoder
Feb 4 at 18:00
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1401661%2fdoes-chocolatey-allow-to-have-multiple-versions-of-same-packages-side-by-side%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
