configure or LD_LIBRARY_PATH or whatever. Maybe you don't have clueless users asking you how to build Wine, but I get quite a bit of them; and being able to tell them "just run tools/wineinstall" saves me a lot of grief.
That's a fair argument, and I can understand that. If it saves you time and agravation, it's worth it.
I guess my main concern is having wineinstall in the main flow of the documentation. You're asking:
What harm do you think it causes? Have you heard of anybody complaining? Why would any power user run wineinstall if they really hate it?
Well, as I've tried to explain, when I see stuff like this, I'm always left with lingering questions: if I run the standard method (configure;make) that I like, I'm wondering wether I've missed something important. Are the bugs I'm seeing caused by me not running wineinstall? If I do run wineinstall, I do it against my first impulse so to speak, and then I keep wondering why the heck couldn't they just stick to the standard method.
I can't speak for others, but for me it's annoying (in projects that I just install, not wine where I know what's going on). Normally I'd suggest that clueless users use a packaged wine instead, but you have a good point about building the latest CVS. Hmmm.
Maybe making it less proeminent in the documentation, but still keeping it around so you can point users to it? Blah, maybe you're right, and people can't really run configure; make Shame.