Unpacking Software Livestream

Join our monthly Unpacking Software livestream to hear about the latest news, chat and opinion on packaging, software deployment and lifecycle management!

Learn More

Chocolatey Product Spotlight

Join the Chocolatey Team on our regular monthly stream where we put a spotlight on the most recent Chocolatey product releases. You'll have a chance to have your questions answered in a live Ask Me Anything format.

Learn More

Chocolatey Coding Livestream

Join us for the Chocolatey Coding Livestream, where members of our team dive into the heart of open source development by coding live on various Chocolatey projects. Tune in to witness real-time coding, ask questions, and gain insights into the world of package management. Don't miss this opportunity to engage with our team and contribute to the future of Chocolatey!

Learn More

Calling All Chocolatiers! Whipping Up Windows Automation with Chocolatey Central Management

Webinar from
Wednesday, 17 January 2024

We are delighted to announce the release of Chocolatey Central Management v0.12.0, featuring seamless Deployment Plan creation, time-saving duplications, insightful Group Details, an upgraded Dashboard, bug fixes, user interface polishing, and refined documentation. As an added bonus we'll have members of our Solutions Engineering team on-hand to dive into some interesting ways you can leverage the new features available!

Watch On-Demand
Chocolatey Community Coffee Break

Join the Chocolatey Team as we discuss all things Community, what we do, how you can get involved and answer your Chocolatey questions.

Watch The Replays
Chocolatey and Intune Overview

Webinar Replay from
Wednesday, 30 March 2022

At Chocolatey Software we strive for simple, and teaching others. Let us teach you just how simple it could be to keep your 3rd party applications updated across your devices, all with Intune!

Watch On-Demand
Chocolatey For Business. In Azure. In One Click.

Livestream from
Thursday, 9 June 2022

Join James and Josh to show you how you can get the Chocolatey For Business recommended infrastructure and workflow, created, in Azure, in around 20 minutes.

Watch On-Demand
The Future of Chocolatey CLI

Livestream from
Thursday, 04 August 2022

Join Paul and Gary to hear more about the plans for the Chocolatey CLI in the not so distant future. We'll talk about some cool new features, long term asks from Customers and Community and how you can get involved!

Watch On-Demand
Hacktoberfest Tuesdays 2022

Livestreams from
October 2022

For Hacktoberfest, Chocolatey ran a livestream every Tuesday! Re-watch Cory, James, Gary, and Rain as they share knowledge on how to contribute to open-source projects such as Chocolatey CLI.

Watch On-Demand

Downloads:

4,542

Downloads of v 1.10:

56

Last Update:

18 Sep 2019

Package Maintainer(s):

Software Author(s):

  • Nick Ham

Tags:

nsm nift dynamic static site generator

Nift

Downloads:

4,542

Downloads of v 1.10:

56

Maintainer(s):

Software Author(s):

  • Nick Ham

Nift

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

All Checks are Passing

3 Passing Tests


Validation Testing Passed


Verification Testing Passed

Details

Scan Testing Successful:

No detections found in any package files

Details
WARNING

This package was rejected on 23 Sep 2019. The reviewer Pauby has listed the following reason(s):

n-ham (maintainer) on 16 Sep 2019 09:23:44 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 16 Sep 2019 09:55:02 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 16 Sep 2019 11:55:17 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated testing.
This is not the only check that is performed so check the package page to ensure a 'Ready' status.
Please visit https://gist.github.com/6b8d3d56840ce5e74ed527af4a04b22f for details.
This is an FYI only. There is no action you need to take.

n-ham (maintainer) on 16 Sep 2019 14:15:25 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 16 Sep 2019 14:51:06 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 16 Sep 2019 16:45:50 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated testing.
This is not the only check that is performed so check the package page to ensure a 'Ready' status.
Please visit https://gist.github.com/66db268a2aac871ad0d2e877fe6ecdf3 for details.
This is an FYI only. There is no action you need to take.

n-ham (maintainer) on 17 Sep 2019 00:57:07 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 17 Sep 2019 01:28:24 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

n-ham (maintainer) on 17 Sep 2019 06:41:38 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 17 Sep 2019 07:13:55 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

Pauby (reviewer) on 17 Sep 2019 09:45:11 +00:00:

Can you see the comments for v1.9 as they will also apply here?

Thanks.

n-ham (maintainer) on 17 Sep 2019 10:26:28 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 17 Sep 2019 10:59:18 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

n-ham (maintainer) on 17 Sep 2019 11:26:50 +00:00:

Should be all fixed up now, check the comments for v1.9.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 17 Sep 2019 12:10:59 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated testing.
This is not the only check that is performed so check the package page to ensure a 'Ready' status.
Please visit https://gist.github.com/a495b488ccd32f6eeb9a61d50fa2cee0 for details.
This is an FYI only. There is no action you need to take.

n-ham (maintainer) on 17 Sep 2019 21:03:19 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 17 Sep 2019 21:37:21 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 17 Sep 2019 23:58:27 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated testing.
This is not the only check that is performed so check the package page to ensure a 'Ready' status.
Please visit https://gist.github.com/a54ac8949a483edd42979108272b2c1f for details.
This is an FYI only. There is no action you need to take.

n-ham (maintainer) on 18 Sep 2019 05:16:34 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 18 Sep 2019 05:48:18 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 18 Sep 2019 07:17:26 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated testing.
This is not the only check that is performed so check the package page to ensure a 'Ready' status.
Please visit https://gist.github.com/3f064a2c324bf080a403d0c588d08810 for details.
This is an FYI only. There is no action you need to take.

Pauby (reviewer) on 18 Sep 2019 08:56:07 +00:00:

Thanks for updating those. In response:

Netlify CDN caches the current copy only. Using something like Githack etc. actually caches the icon and doesn't allow changes at the URL it provides. So what you submit as the icon in this package version never changes. This is important. It also means that we can see at a glance it's been cached (as the githack.com URL is in there and it's immediately obvious). You don't have to use Githack.com of course.

What I was going to do was pass it and just ask you to update this for the next version so we can get this through, however the SHA256 hashes of the files downloaded from the URL in the VERIFICATION.txt does not match the hashes in the VERIFICATION.txt or the files embedded in the package. The hashes I get are:

nsm.exe - 82BE0B3ABFB998797ED266F325E48CF5F77090352F39E382CA6BF8689F45A03C

nift,exe - 7763225B52B68969E06CC537D44B388AC002B103DAB06D6BB4B077E3F18D897F

Can you have a look at that?

n-ham (maintainer) on 18 Sep 2019 12:22:00 +00:00:

User 'n-ham' (maintainer) submitted package.

n-ham (maintainer) on 18 Sep 2019 12:23:36 +00:00:

I have switched the icon to using githack.

I should have fixed up verification.txt too, let me know if there's any further issues. Sorry about that.

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 18 Sep 2019 12:54:00 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated validation. It may have or may still fail other checks like testing (verification).
NOTE: No required changes that the validator checks have been flagged! It is appreciated if you fix other items, but only Requirements will hold up a package version from approval. A human review could still turn up issues a computer may not easily find.

Guidelines

Guidelines are strong suggestions that improve the quality of a package version. These are considered something to fix for next time to increase the quality of the package. Over time Guidelines can become Requirements. A package version can be approved without addressing Guideline comments but will reduce the quality of the package.

  • Package contains dependencies with no specified version. You should at least specify a minimum version of a dependency. More...
Suggestions

Suggestions are either newly introduced items that will later become Guidelines or items that are don't carry enough weight to become a Guideline. Either way they should be considered. A package version can be approved without addressing Suggestion comments.

Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

  • The package maintainer field (owners) matches the software author field (authors) in the nuspec. The reviewer will ensure that the package maintainer is also the software author. More...
  • Binary files (.exe, .msi, .zip) have been included. The reviewer will ensure the maintainers have distribution rights. More...

chocolatey-ops (reviewer) on 18 Sep 2019 14:11:19 +00:00:

nsm has passed automated testing.
This is not the only check that is performed so check the package page to ensure a 'Ready' status.
Please visit https://gist.github.com/8eaa8c4c5b7e3610a0558e04bf43a8e2 for details.
This is an FYI only. There is no action you need to take.

Pauby (reviewer) on 19 Sep 2019 09:38:02 +00:00:

Awesome. Thanks for making those changes.

One thing I missed - for the next version can you add the location of the license into the first line of the license.txt - e.g. 'From: <URL>'.

Thanks.
Status Change - Changed status of package from 'submitted' to 'approved'.

n-ham (maintainer) on 22 Sep 2019 22:04:26 +00:00:

Please reject v1.10 of Nift, it has a major bug in it.

Pauby (reviewer) on 23 Sep 2019 13:40:59 +00:00:

Rejected at the maintainers request - Please reject v1.10 of Nift, it has a major bug in it.
Status Change - Changed status of package from 'approved' to 'rejected'.

Description

install: choco install nsm

Nift (aka nsm) is a cross-platform open source git-like and
LaTeX-like command-line dynamic and static site generator.

See https://nift.cc

Please Note: This is an automatically updated package. If you find it is
out of date by more than a day or two, please contact the maintainer(s) and
let them know the package is no longer updating correctly.


nift.exe
md5: CC6870B7D3239DB3B31A04FD879B6C79 | sha1: 379540D6D26843FDF1CE4BDBEE810063E030926C | sha256: EAC2FD8B1B29C0CCA7A9D70C180B3A148F89557E79A49C0DC245A20F4458C148 | sha512: F98FE49717D117AF609A967CFC9D727584DF7B3D8DFF21A938EB220E884E892950B8C1F9FBBF32C43A9C9EFD358DFE9AD034CDF4AB6A7D98C39E5511C7284B48
nsm.exe
md5: 65A30C5A6270715552CADBE2FFCC1DC9 | sha1: D09D45377A0F53267A72652BD238D560F805ECFE | sha256: 67598605A4C27B2CD1E34A16EFD055DD0B3591FFA10B3DFF2B9CD14FFD60FBA7 | sha512: E0623F7098C0A16846B7606C2D5644EEFEFB0A4004927E4B5D7912C04B9128DF7DD633D622385347749848FFD06239E31714892048A6F1AE5CE426465B1923C7
tools\LICENSE.txt
The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2015 Nicholas Ham

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.
tools\VERIFICATION.txt
This package is released by the author/developer of the software (Nick Ham, https://n-ham.com).

You can verify the checksum of the contents with `checksum -t sha256 -f filename`. The checksums should be:
 * nift.exe EAC2FD8B1B29C0CCA7A9D70C180B3A148F89557E79A49C0DC245A20F4458C148
 * nsm.exe 67598605A4C27B2CD1E34A16EFD055DD0B3591FFA10B3DFF2B9CD14FFD60FBA7
 * nsm.nuspec 8CDBF95AEA1E53CF00A53E72A3CCA7656838FF1064CA0429E3E74A1D84DD930E
  # You can also use checksum.exe (choco install checksum) and use it 
  # e.g. checksum -t sha256 -f path\to\file

The official files can be downloaded from:
https://github.com/nifty-site-manager/nsm-chocolatey/

Note: checksum verification instructions are optional.

VERIFICATION
Verification is intended to assist the Chocolatey moderators and community
in verifying that this package's contents are trustworthy.
 

Log in or click on link to see number of positives.

In cases where actual malware is found, the packages are subject to removal. Software sometimes has false positives. Moderators do not necessarily validate the safety of the underlying software, only that a package retrieves software from the official distribution point and/or validate embedded software against official distribution point (where distribution rights allow redistribution).

Chocolatey Pro provides runtime protection from possible malware.

Add to Builder Version Downloads Last Updated Status
Nift 2.0.1 149 Saturday, January 4, 2020 Approved
Nift 2.0 170 Friday, January 3, 2020 Approved
Nift 1.25.1 153 Thursday, December 19, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.25 167 Thursday, December 19, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.24 160 Wednesday, December 11, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.23 177 Monday, December 2, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.22 165 Saturday, November 30, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.21 156 Wednesday, November 27, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.20 175 Sunday, November 24, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.19 198 Wednesday, November 20, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.17 199 Friday, November 1, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.16 166 Sunday, October 27, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.15 176 Saturday, October 5, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.14 164 Thursday, October 3, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.13 204 Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.12 185 Monday, September 30, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.11 179 Friday, September 20, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.8 232 Monday, August 26, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.7 215 Friday, August 23, 2019 Approved
Nift 1.5 223 Thursday, August 22, 2019 Approved
nifty site manager 1.0 250 Sunday, August 11, 2019 Approved

  • Version 1.10 of Nift
    * added in @system and @systemout syntax to template language
    * added in pre/post build/serve script support
Discussion for the Nift Package

Ground Rules:

  • This discussion is only about Nift and the Nift package. If you have feedback for Chocolatey, please contact the Google Group.
  • This discussion will carry over multiple versions. If you have a comment about a particular version, please note that in your comments.
  • The maintainers of this Chocolatey Package will be notified about new comments that are posted to this Disqus thread, however, it is NOT a guarantee that you will get a response. If you do not hear back from the maintainers after posting a message below, please follow up by using the link on the left side of this page or follow this link to contact maintainers. If you still hear nothing back, please follow the package triage process.
  • Tell us what you love about the package or Nift, or tell us what needs improvement.
  • Share your experiences with the package, or extra configuration or gotchas that you've found.
  • If you use a url, the comment will be flagged for moderation until you've been whitelisted. Disqus moderated comments are approved on a weekly schedule if not sooner. It could take between 1-5 days for your comment to show up.
comments powered by Disqus