NI Package Builder

[viSci]

At NIWeek, the new NI Package Builder was showcased.  It looks like an alternative to VIPM, is that correct?

Did anyone notice if it is going to work with previous versions of LabVIEW or just 2017?

Edited June 7, 2017 by viSci

[hooovahh]

The NI Package Builder is less of a replacement for VIPM in my opinion, and more of a distribution method for installing software in general.  NI may mature their package manager to one day replace VIPM, but as it is now the NIPM is not so much focused on installing LabVIEW packages, as it is focused on installing software.  Now LabVIEW packages can be software (of course) but you won't find things like palette editing tools, running pre/post install VIs, or anything LabVIEW specific at the moment.  It is more like an app store, where you can one day search for tools network packages, or larger packages like NI DAQmx.  This is how NXG is currently distributed by installing the NIPM, and then choosing to install NXG and its dependent packages.  There is also an offline installer but I suspect it is still just NIPM with the NXG packages as an offline repository.  

Of course this also opens up the possibility of making your own packages and you can have the "Hooovahh's Awesome Program" package which may depend on the NXG run-time, DAQmx, NI-DMM, and NI-VISA.  Then these packages can be included in an offline repository that gets installed, or (potentially) an online repository so users of my software can update to newer versions of my awesome program, or newer version of NI's packages if dependencies allow it.

Because of this I highly doubt it will ever replace VIPM for current generation LabVIEW needs.  At the moment this just doesn't seem to be what the NIPM is made for.

[smithd]

I'm guessing its deliberately not replacing vipm for current lv. You can download and install the builder tools for current labview but it seems to exclude the ability to select by labview version, symbolic paths, etc. If you peek at the available packages you'll note that there seems to be a separate package for each supported labview version. Surely this is not a use case they overlooked, so the only conclusion I can draw is that they excluded it on purpose.

Edited June 7, 2017 by smithd