The XML is pretty easy to deal with, too. InstallBuilder has a great, fast UI in the produced installers and has a serviceable UI for creating installers. The Windows installers do not register with the Control Panel uninstaller list.
The extension interface is not terribly easy to deal with, but is almost infinitely flexible. That said, as long as you use a 4.x version and require a JVM anyway, it may be enough for your needs. Version 5 (release candidate 3) was also not generating uninstallers properly. Izpack is a bit slow, a bit large if you need to package a JVM, and has an amateurish user interface.
Users can then drag the file directly to the Applications folder.įinally, I wanted to mention that InstallBuilder is commercial, but we offer free licenses for open source projects and discounts for small development firms.Īfter fully integrating both Izpack and InstallBuilder into our builds (using Windows, OSX, and Ubuntu 14 build servers for testing purposes), I will say I believe InstallBuilder is well worth the money (and free for open source projects according to wojciechka). Having said this, since your application is Desktop-oriented, for the particular case of OS X if it does not require complex installation you may be better off creating a.
#INSTALLBUILDER ADDWINDOWSSERVICE SOFTWARE#
If you ship your software in DVDs, you can create a single multi-platform DVD that shares data across platforms but still have native launchers.
It is able to generate wizard-like executable installers for all platforms from a single project file as well as native packages such as DEB and RPM. and adds a significant overhead that is not required with a Qt-based installer, like ours. The link that Kyle mentions is pretty comprehensive, but I wanted to provide a bit more of information about InstallBuilder for Qt (Disclaimer, I am one of the developers) since most of the cross platform installation programs referenced there are Java-based.
0 kommentar(er)
