ServiceBusExplorer: chocolatey install ServiceBusExplorer doesnt work

this is what it says:

Chocolatey v0.10.7
Installing the following packages:
ServiceBusExplorer
By installing you accept licenses for the packages.
ServiceBusExplorer not installed. The package was not found with the source(s) listed.
 If you specified a particular version and are receiving this message, it is possible that the package name exists but the version does not.
 Version: ""
 Source(s): "https://chocolatey.org/api/v2/"

Chocolatey installed 0/1 packages. 1 packages failed.
 See the log for details (C:\ProgramData\chocolatey\logs\chocolatey.log).

Failures
 - ServiceBusExplorer - ServiceBusExplorer not installed. The package was not found with the source(s) listed.
 If you specified a particular version and are receiving this message, it is possible that the package name exists but the version does not.
 Version: ""
 Source(s): "https://chocolatey.org/api/v2/"

About this issue

  • Original URL
  • State: closed
  • Created 7 years ago
  • Reactions: 3
  • Comments: 77 (25 by maintainers)

Most upvoted comments

Yeah it takes them a bit to approve it but it’s passed automated testing & validation so we should be in the clear.

If you want you can run chocolatey install ServiceBusExplorer --confirm --pre --version 4.0.101 and servicebusexplorer to get it up and running 👍 works like a charm!

We’ve merged it in, let’s hope this is sufficient for the Chocolatey team. If not, I’ll reopen this one. Feel free to keep us posted on the validation @paolosalvatori

We’ll look into this, I’m flying to NDC Sydney next week so will have enough time to kill…

They sure are not demanding…

Also please remove the XML documentation files - (they’re blowing up the web page code formatting scripts)

That’s indeed how I was approaching it. I’m working on it @SeanFeldman but won’t be ready today

What a process to get this stuff in there. If nobody is up for it, I can do this later today/this week.

Looks like no package is published. Is the package published? Looking at #129, I think it’s not?