Installation via winget

I didn't find information about installing via winget (which is working). It seems reasonable to include instruction on github or in Unofficial alternative Joplin distributions. But I don't know which one is correct place. Could you clear it up?

Because this is no offical distribution way, the Information should be linked in the discourse post.

1 Like

As mentioned it is indeed an unofficial distribution, thanks for bringing it to our attention though, I've added it to the post along with info about windows package manager.

I'm unsure whether it makes sense to say Winget is a third party distribution. It downloads the official .exe and simply runs it with the /quiet flag to supress the installation UI; it'd be like arguing the Linux AppImage is unofficial just because you use a script to acquire it, except that the AppImage installer script is actually handling a lot more than Winget does.

There's also no actual need to install Joplin via Winget to get updates to it via Winget. As far as Winget is concerned, there's no difference between running the .exe with Winget or without it.

In essence, there's no actual distribution of Joplin, just distribution of the metadata to install it, the Joplin installer itself is certainly bit for bit identical with the official release.

I think the distinction there is more the distribution method and who maintains it. The same argument could be made for the AUR .appimage which, as far as I know, is basically the same thing as this.
It is still a good idea to list it because there is no official channel that updates the winget repo so it is entirely possible that it becomes stale if nobody maintains it; leading to issues like mismatched versions between mobile and desktop for which people come looking for support. Not to mention if there are any issues during the install procedure itself as a result of what has been put into those manifests.

There is also no control over what exactly is within those manifests (just like the AUR pkgbuilds) in regards to whether it is using the pre-release flags etc.

If there is a better way to categorise it then I'm entirely open to suggestions or anyone make edits to the wiki directly.

1 Like

I suppose the maintainer is a good place to draw the line, but the question really is why is there a line drawn at all? Presumably, the seperation is to clearly distinguish which environments the core devs are willing to provide support for, vs those which are "use at your own risk" so to say.

So while Winget is third party on the aspect of people controlling the repository metadata, I'd personally feel it's "close enough" to the proper installation format that it'd be almost indistinguishable in terms of support. The AUR AppImage could be considered similarly, although my gut instinct is to say it doesn't count, mostly on differences between Linux and Windows when considering expectations in environment setup and standard API's.

I can't really propose any actual changes, I suppose trying to be rational, the wiki is fine as is really. But I do think calling Winget a package manager is extremely misleading even if it is the official wording, it implies there's actually Winget packages; there isn't, it's just the normal app packages which it happens to manage.

Specifically regarding pre-releases, I believe it was cleared up a few months back that the default for Winget should be to only offer the stable builds unless the user overrides it.

I think there are two sides to it, yes there may be a desire to not support changes or issues that aren't related directly to the official distribution but personally the reason I made the post in the first place was actually to offer alternatives to people and to credit those people like yourself going to the effort to provide and maintain them. So my intention was certainly to put a positive angle on it, not to act as some kind of warning to keep people away from them.

When it comes to support, unless the issue is obvious due to the distribution method (e.g. can't install Joplin from winget because it gives x error when I enter this command) I don't think anyone gets turned away, most of the support given tends to be from community members without any official affiliation anyway and it isn't like there is some kind of call logging/ticketing system in place.


By the way, slightly unrelated, but would it make sense to also add links to the official releases on the unofficial releases page? The forum being well referenced by search engines, I wouldn't be surprised if people end up there, and download for example the IzzySoft APK not knowing we also offer the app on the Play Store (which for most users is preferable).

Perhaps just a very visible link - "Looking for the official releases? Go to the download page" (with a link to it). What do you think?


Always in favour with giving people info and options and letting them decide what they want to do!!

I've added a header to the post to make it obvious, feel free to tweak or let me know if it is a bit too much :smile:.
The <mark> tag works if overkill is needed.


Thank you!


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.