Add framework-dependent deployment packages without bundled .NET runtime

[Copilot]

Adds framework-dependent installation packages for users with .NET 9.0 already installed, reducing download size by ~150-200MB.

Changes

Build configuration:

• Added Net9.0-FrameworkDependent.pubxml publish profile with SelfContained=false, outputs to Output/Release-FD
• Enhanced post_build.ps1 to build both deployment modes in sequence

Package outputs:

• Self-contained (existing): Flow-Launcher-Setup.exe, Flow-Launcher-Portable.zip
• Framework-dependent (new): Flow-Launcher-Setup-FD.exe, Flow-Launcher-Portable-FD.zip

CI/CD:

• Updated GitHub Actions and AppVeyor workflows to upload both package types as separate artifacts
• Both package types included in release deployments

Documentation:

• Updated README installation section with framework-dependent package links

Technical notes

Framework-dependent packages require .NET 9.0 runtime pre-installed on target systems. Build process handles nupkg naming conflicts by appending -FD suffix before Squirrel releasify step.

Original prompt

---

This section details on the original issue you should resolve

<issue_title>FEATURE REQUEST: provide an installation package that does not include the .NET runtime.</issue_title>
<issue_description>Provides an installation package that does not include the .NET runtime to reduce the package size.</issue_description>

Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section)

• Fixes FEATURE REQUEST: provide an installation package that does not include the .NET runtime. #4134

---

✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.

[jjw24]

In the modern day and age is 150mb really worth shaving off? My main concern is this is another option a non-technical user will need to understand- why another installation file and what's the difference between this and standard.

If they move the framework free version to a computer without .Net 9 it's going fail and we might end up with another request to provide an option to install .Net 9.

I think a better solution is to use Velopack and let the single setup file install the missing framework, so we don't need to pack and publish this additional one- https://docs.velopack.io/packaging/bootstrapping

[VictoriousRaptor]

In the modern day and age is 150mb really worth shaving off? My main concern is this is another option a non-technical user will need to understand- why another installation file and what's the difference between this and standard.

If they move the framework free version to a computer without .Net 9 it's going fail and we might end up with another request to provide an option to install .Net 9.

I think a better solution is to use Velopack and let the single setup file install the missing framework, so we don't need to pack and publish this additional one- https://docs.velopack.io/packaging/bootstrapping

Nah this PR is only a try for Copliot. Not a serious PR and currently I am not really into this feature.