I was chatting with Rudolf Kastl(che on #winehq) and he was mentioning the things that he was doing for the rpm package. One of the patches he applies to wine prior to packaging it is a patch that creates local user config files if they don't exist. This helps end users as they don't have to worry about the package maintainer providing valid config files. I thought this sounded like a pretty neat idea to improve usability. The patch currently copies files from /etc/* which means they would need to be installed there during the process.
I was wondering if it would make more sense during the compile process to take the default configuration files, config, system.reg, user.reg and userdef.reg and convert these to binary form and compile them into the wine binary itself. We could detect the lack of these files at startup and install them for the user.
Another feature could be a command line switch that would rebuild a users config, like:
'wine --rebuild-config'
that would reset the users config back to the defaults.
Sound like something reasonable? Should we instead be putting the default files somewhere on the users machine and copying them over like the patch does?
Chris
On December 16, 2003 06:39 pm, Chris Morgan wrote:
I was chatting with Rudolf Kastl(che on #winehq) and he was mentioning the things that he was doing for the rpm package. One of the patches he applies to wine prior to packaging it is a patch that creates local user config files if they don't exist. This helps end users as they don't have to worry about the package maintainer providing valid config files. I thought this sounded like a pretty neat idea to improve usability. The patch currently copies files from /etc/* which means they would need to be installed there during the process.
I was wondering if it would make more sense during the compile process to take the default configuration files, config, system.reg, user.reg and userdef.reg and convert these to binary form and compile them into the wine binary itself. We could detect the lack of these files at startup and install them for the user.
I don't like the idea; I much prefer the idea of copying them from somewhere in /etc, as redhat does. The default config file in /etc can then be modified so that it matches the distribution (redhat have their cd at /mnt/cdrom) and it can be modified by the sysadmin
Another feature could be a command line switch that would rebuild a users config, like:
'wine --rebuild-config'
that would reset the users config back to the defaults.
Interesting idea
Sound like something reasonable? Should we instead be putting the default files somewhere on the users machine and copying them over like the patch does?
Yes
Chris
I don't like the idea; I much prefer the idea of copying them from somewhere in /etc, as redhat does. The default config file in /etc can then be modified so that it matches the distribution (redhat have their cd at /mnt/cdrom) and it can be modified by the sysadmin
The less modification to the install process the better. If there was a single location the files could be installed to that would work for all distros I think this is the route to head in. Otherwise I can't see why it is all that bad to stuff them into the binary to avoid the problem all together.
Another feature could be a command line switch that would rebuild a users config, like:
'wine --rebuild-config'
that would reset the users config back to the defaults.
Interesting idea
Sound like something reasonable? Should we instead be putting the default files somewhere on the users machine and copying them over like the patch does?
Yes
Chris
-- Bill Medland mailto:billmedland@mercuryspeed.com http://webhome.idirect.com/~kbmed
On December 17, 2003 07:57 am, Chris Morgan wrote:
I don't like the idea; I much prefer the idea of copying them from somewhere in /etc, as redhat does. The default config file in /etc can then be modified so that it matches the distribution (redhat have their cd at /mnt/cdrom) and it can be modified by the sysadmin
The less modification to the install process the better. If there was a single location the files could be installed to that would work for all distros I think this is the route to head in.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone adhered to the FHS!! Unfortunately they don't. And then there is the whole issue of relocatable rpms.
Otherwise I can't see why it isall that bad to stuff them into the binary to avoid the problem all together.
Wine is still developing. Whether we like it or not the pattern of DLL Overrides that works for one setup (e.g. set of programs) is not the same as for another. Therefore it makes sense to continue in the historical unix/linux pattern of allowing the sysadmin to make changes to file systems and text files in order to tune the environment.
For example. A sysadmin is maintaining many linux computers handling many users. The sysadmin has to make changes to the default config and c drive to support the programs that are run on this network. When adding a new user the sysadmin doesn't want to have to modify the new user's config and c drive; they want to modify the copy that is used to generate it.
Another feature could be a command line switch that would rebuild a users config, like:
'wine --rebuild-config'
that would reset the users config back to the defaults.
Interesting idea
Sound like something reasonable? Should we instead be putting the default files somewhere on the users machine and copying them over like the patch does?
Yes
Chris
-- Bill Medland mailto:billmedland@mercuryspeed.com http://webhome.idirect.com/~kbmed
-
Bill Medland -
Chris Morgan