Is wineinstall needed anymore? README seems to indicate you can install Wine just fine without it. - Dan
--- Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Is wineinstall needed anymore? README seems to indicate you can install Wine just fine without it.
You can but Alexandre wants to keep it to make it easier for new Linux users to build and install Wine.
Thanks Steven
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Steven Edwards wrote:
--- Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Is wineinstall needed anymore? README seems to indicate you can install Wine just fine without it.
You can but Alexandre wants to keep it to make it easier for new Linux users to build and install Wine.
OK, but wineinstall seems to do more than wineprefixcreate; shouldn't they do exactly the same thing when setting up the registry and drives? - Dan
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:03:05 -0800, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Steven Edwards wrote:
--- Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Is wineinstall needed anymore? README seems to indicate you can install Wine just fine without it.
You can but Alexandre wants to keep it to make it easier for new Linux users to build and install Wine.
OK, but wineinstall seems to do more than wineprefixcreate; shouldn't they do exactly the same thing when setting up the registry and drives?
- Dan
-- Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html
For many, wine is a stepping stone from windows to linux. It eases the relocation process. For those people, ./configure, make, and make install isn't so trivial or automatic. What they are used to is a single setup.exe like in windows, and they also want that with linux, and that is what wineinstall does. If you feel you are more comfortable with configure, make, make install etc then you should do it that way, but because there are still people who dont know that route, wineinstall still exists.
James Hawkins wrote:
Is wineinstall needed anymore? README seems to indicate you can install Wine just fine without it.
You can but Alexandre wants to keep it to make it easier for new Linux users to build and install Wine.
OK, but wineinstall seems to do more than wineprefixcreate; shouldn't they do exactly the same thing when setting up the registry and drives?
For many, wine is a stepping stone from windows to linux. It eases the relocation process. For those people, ./configure, make, and make install isn't so trivial or automatic. What they are used to is a single setup.exe like in windows
Most people install RPMs, they don't build from source.
That's fine. I'm not arguing against having such a script that does the configure / make / make install . What I object to is that there is *duplicated code* between wineprefixcreate and wineinstall, and it's already diverging. e.g. wineinstall contains
if [ ! -d ~/.wine/dosdevices ] then [ -d ~/.wine ] || mkdir ~/.wine mkdir ~/.wine/dosdevices ln -s /mnt/fd0 ~/.wine/dosdevices/a: ln -s $CROOT ~/.wine/dosdevices/c: ln -s /cdrom ~/.wine/dosdevices/d: ln -s /tmp ~/.wine/dosdevices/e: ln -s ~ ~/.wine/dosdevices/f: ln -s / ~/.wine/dosdevices/z: fi
if [ "$WINEINSTALLED" = 'no' ] then tools/wineprefixcreate --update --use-wine-tree . else wineprefixcreate --update fi
and wineprefixcreate contains
if [ ! -d "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices" ] then mkdir "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices" [ -d "$WINEPREFIX/drive_c" ] || mkdir "$WINEPREFIX/drive_c" ln -s "../drive_c" "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices/c:" ln -s "/" "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices/z:" fi
Now, why the different list of drives in the two scripts? And why does wineinstall have *any* of what's in wineprefixcreate, since it then immediately calls wineprefixcreate?
Code forking is evil, and makes bugs harder to reproduce. How 'bout we at least nuke the part of wineintall that duplicates what's in wineprefixcreate?
- Dan
For many, wine is a stepping stone from windows to linux. It eases the relocation process. For those people, ./configure, make, and make install isn't so trivial or automatic. What they are used to is a single setup.exe like in windows
Most people install RPMs, they don't build from source.
I'll second this. Most users install wine from binaries. Those that install from source look to our documentation which could easily instruct them to do as they should for nearly all source projects using the normal configure,make,make install.
Now, why the different list of drives in the two scripts? And why does wineinstall have *any* of what's in wineprefixcreate, since it then immediately calls wineprefixcreate?
Code forking is evil, and makes bugs harder to reproduce. How 'bout we at least nuke the part of wineintall that duplicates what's in wineprefixcreate?
Lets just get rid of wineinstall, then we won't have to worry about duplicated code. ;-)
Chris
I just want to chime in to the group and say that I've been a regular user of Wine now for close to a year now. I absolutely **LOVE** wineinstall. In fact, as a VERY newbie Linux user at the time, Wine was the very first app I installed on Linux BECAUSE of wineinstall - otherwise, I probably never would have made the move.
Wine RPMs have never properly worked for me (I run JDS R2); so, I stick with installing via the wineinstall script. I also recommend others to not use RPMs to avoid possible hassles. (Ironic isn't it?) Wineinstall just makes everything easy by automating everything -- from configuring to making to installing to creating my fake c drive & config file -- ... especially when I'm instructed to rent a video or two. ;)
Since then, I've compiled other apps with configure/ make/ make install ... yet, I find myself still using wineinstall for installing Wine from source.
Keep Wineinstall... it's vital.
Hiji
For many, wine is a stepping stone from windows to linux. It eases the relocation process. For those people, ./configure, make, and make install isn't so trivial or automatic. What they are used to is a single setup.exe like in windows, and they also want that with linux, and that is what wineinstall does. If you feel you are more comfortable with configure, make, make install etc then you should do it that way, but because there are still people who dont know that route, wineinstall still exists.
-- James Hawkins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
M-Halo wrote:
Since then, I've compiled other apps with configure/ make/ make install ... yet, I find myself still using wineinstall for installing Wine from source.
Keep Wineinstall... it's vital.
OK, let's keep it, but let's migrate everything interesting from it into configure.ac, Makefile.in, or winecreateprefix. Then wineinstall can just be the one-line script configure && make depend && make && make install and we won't have to ask people which way they built wine; with or without wineinstall will yield exactly the same results. - Dan
Dan Kegel wrote:
M-Halo wrote:
Since then, I've compiled other apps with configure/ make/ make install ... yet, I find myself still using wineinstall for installing Wine from source.
Keep Wineinstall... it's vital.
OK, let's keep it, but let's migrate everything interesting from it into configure.ac, Makefile.in, or winecreateprefix. Then wineinstall can just be the one-line script configure && make depend && make && make install and we won't have to ask people which way they built wine; with or without wineinstall will yield exactly the same results.
- Dan
As strictly a user, I think that Dan's idea is great. If wineprefixcreate did all the stuff that wineinstall does, then there would be no need for wineinstall. Since the two processes are currently different--and I am one who prefers wineinstall also--installing wine, depending on the method used, can create some confusion.
Dan
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:50:27PM -0800, M-Halo wrote:
Wine RPMs have never properly worked for me (I run JDS R2); so, I stick with installing via the wineinstall script. I also recommend others to not use RPMs to avoid possible hassles. (Ironic isn't it?) Wineinstall just makes everything easy by automating everything -- from configuring to making to installing to creating my fake c drive & config file -- ... especially when I'm instructed to rent a video or two. ;)
And this is the problem: having wineinstall around makes it a self-fulfiling profecy: in theory, you should get the *same* result (and working version) if you run wineinstall or configure/make/make install. But because we have wineinstall people don't bother to fix the standard process, and instead patch wineinstall.
So, if RPM's don't work, or configure/make/make install doesn't it's a bug. It needs fixing. As Dan put it, wineinstall should just be: configure && make && make depend && make install
Yes, but what do you do when you have a brand new Linux user with the following criteria:
1. They are on a distro with no Wine RPMs 2. They haven't the slightest idea what configure/ make/ make install means or does
Besides, on the wine-users alias, new users who install RPMs have no idea there is a config file because the RPMs don't create it for them. Wineinstall does everything... Am I understanding right that "make install" will create the fake c drive and install the config file? :)
Anyhow, the criteria above... That was me when I first tried Linux. Again, without wineinstall, I probably wouldn't be on Linux today.
It may be a redundant feature, but "configure/ make/ make install" is definately not a replacement for "ease of use." ;)
Hiji
And this is the problem: having wineinstall around makes it a self-fulfiling profecy: in theory, you should get the *same* result (and working version) if you run wineinstall or configure/make/make install. But because we have wineinstall people don't bother to fix the standard process, and instead patch wineinstall.
So, if RPM's don't work, or configure/make/make install doesn't it's a bug. It needs fixing. As Dan put it, wineinstall should just be: configure && make && make depend && make install
-- Dimi.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Le mer 17/11/2004 à 14:37, M-Halo a écrit :
Yes, but what do you do when you have a brand new Linux user with the following criteria:
- They are on a distro with no Wine RPMs
Problem just here: if you're a new Linux user, stick to standard distributions, they're better supported by the community. Same thing as a car really: try to avoid the brand new model, at least until it's qualities/deficiencies are known and the car shops around your house know how to fix it.
- They haven't the slightest idea what configure/
make/ make install means or does
That's why there are binary packages pre-built.
Besides, on the wine-users alias, new users who install RPMs have no idea there is a config file because the RPMs don't create it for them. Wineinstall does everything... Am I understanding right that "make install" will create the fake c drive and install the config file? :)
It's not make install. The fake c drive (as another post in this thread said) is currently split (differently) between wineinstall and wineprefixcreate. The config file is only copied nowadays: some RPMs do have one in /etc/wine/config.
Anyhow, the criteria above... That was me when I first tried Linux. Again, without wineinstall, I probably wouldn't be on Linux today.
That's partly because Wine is not as packaged by distributions as it was a couple years ago (ie, some dropped it from their standard packages). If it was in the standard packages as bash or textutils are, the wineinstall question would be moot. Another angle to look at this is that even if Wine is packaged by a distributions, users want the latest version because it should be less broken than the older one.
It may be a redundant feature, but "configure/ make/ make install" is definately not a replacement for "ease of use." ;)
Depends for who. And it's not really "ease of use", more "standard installation procedure". Usage is still basically "wine app.exe".
Vincent
--- Vincent B�ron vberon@mecano.gme.usherb.ca wrote:
Le mer 17/11/2004 � 14:37, M-Halo a �crit :
Yes, but what do you do when you have a brand new Linux user with the following criteria:
- They are on a distro with no Wine RPMs
Problem just here: if you're a new Linux user, stick to standard distributions, they're better supported by the community. Same thing as a car really: try to avoid the brand new model, at least until it's qualities/deficiencies are known and the car shops around your house know how to fix it.
I'm on JDS R2 - That's a Sun Microsystems product. It's not a major one, but its gaining growth rather fast. If a Sun customer wants to use Wine (and they'rre new to the JDS), they can't tell them, "Hey, don't use our product. You're better off with Red Hat."
Its a solid distro, and I personally wouldn't trade it for Red Hat.
Food for thought. Someone shouldn't *have* to use an RPM if they are a newbie.
Hiji
===== M-Halo: It's Electronic Rock - http://www.mhalo.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:50:27PM -0800, M-Halo wrote:
Wine RPMs have never properly worked for me (I run JDS R2); so, I stick with installing via the wineinstall script. I also recommend others to not use RPMs to avoid possible hassles. (Ironic isn't it?) Wineinstall just makes everything easy by automating everything -- from configuring to making to installing to creating my fake c drive & config file -- ... especially when I'm instructed to rent a video or two. ;)
And this is the problem: having wineinstall around makes it a self-fulfiling profecy: in theory, you should get the *same* result (and working version) if you run wineinstall or configure/make/make install. But because we have wineinstall people don't bother to fix the standard process, and instead patch wineinstall.
So, if RPM's don't work, or configure/make/make install doesn't it's a bug. It needs fixing. As Dan put it, wineinstall should just be: configure && make && make depend && make install
All that about "configure && make && make depend && make install" would be valid if running those - and running wine for an exe after that, could generate/install any needed files, without the user needing to write difficult or "not-so-difficult" configurations
As I understand, the big problem is that ~/.wine/config file - it's in the todo to get rid of it, but not all config options are moved elsewhere; And the documentation will be outdated if that file isn't there - How should I specify dll overrides for a specific program if the ~/.wine/config file isn't there anymore? (as wine is not ready to run without any dll overrides for many programs - some may never run without them, like Internet Explorer)
I think, as long as that isn't handled, wineinstall can't go away... don't make using wine harder than it is...!
just my thoughts on this, regards
Joris
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:20:43PM +0100, Joris Huizer wrote:
I think, as long as that isn't handled, wineinstall can't go away... don't make using wine harder than it is...!
Of course, we will not make things harder. In fact, removing the wineinstall dependency is a sign that we've made things a lot simpler: wine will just work, automatically, seemlessly. No fudging around with config files, etc.
We just need to get there :)
How should I specify dll overrides for a specific program if the ~/.wine/config file isn't there anymore?
WINEDLLOVERRIDES="somedll=n" wine prog.exe
unless you mean override permanently in which case I think that support is in the registry, but that specific part of the registry tree is marked read only right now until everything is moved into the registry.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:20:43 +0100, Joris Huizer jorishuizer@planet.nl wrote:
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:50:27PM -0800, M-Halo wrote:
Wine RPMs have never properly worked for me (I run JDS R2); so, I stick with installing via the wineinstall script. I also recommend others to not use RPMs to avoid possible hassles. (Ironic isn't it?) Wineinstall just makes everything easy by automating everything -- from configuring to making to installing to creating my fake c drive & config file -- ... especially when I'm instructed to rent a video or two. ;)
And this is the problem: having wineinstall around makes it a self-fulfiling profecy: in theory, you should get the *same* result (and working version) if you run wineinstall or configure/make/make install. But because we have wineinstall people don't bother to fix the standard process, and instead patch wineinstall.
So, if RPM's don't work, or configure/make/make install doesn't it's a bug. It needs fixing. As Dan put it, wineinstall should just be: configure && make && make depend && make install
All that about "configure && make && make depend && make install" would be valid if running those - and running wine for an exe after that, could generate/install any needed files, without the user needing to write difficult or "not-so-difficult" configurations
As I understand, the big problem is that ~/.wine/config file - it's in the todo to get rid of it, but not all config options are moved elsewhere; And the documentation will be outdated if that file isn't there - How should I specify dll overrides for a specific program if the ~/.wine/config file isn't there anymore? (as wine is not ready to run without any dll overrides for many programs - some may never run without them, like Internet Explorer)
I think, as long as that isn't handled, wineinstall can't go away... don't make using wine harder than it is...!
just my thoughts on this, regards
Joris
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:20:43 +0100, Joris Huizer jorishuizer@planet.nl wrote:
As I understand, the big problem is that ~/.wine/config file - it's in the todo to get rid of it, but not all config options are moved elsewhere; And the documentation will be outdated if that file isn't there
Not a problem, the Wine User Guide update for using winecfg is mostly complete: http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2004/09/0716.html
(I need to update to match Mike's last round of winecfg patches.)
- How should I specify dll overrides for a specific program if the
~/.wine/config file isn't there anymore? (as wine is not ready to run
winecfg
-Brian
M-Halo schrieb:
I just want to chime in to the group and say that I've been a regular user of Wine now for close to a year now. I absolutely **LOVE** wineinstall. In fact, as a VERY newbie Linux user at the time, Wine was the very first app I installed on Linux BECAUSE of wineinstall - otherwise, I probably never would have made the move.
I can only agree 100% to that.
I loved to use this simple install when I was new to linux and I still use it today.
Regards, Christian
Christian Britz schrieb:
I can only agree 100% to that.
I loved to use this simple install when I was new to linux and I still use it today.
I would even add one feature: handling the uninstall of previous installations.
How is wineinstall easier than instructing them to run ./configure, make and make install? Having wineinstall implies that the script does something extra that wine needs that differs from the normal way you build and install a program from source.
Chris
On Sunday 14 November 2004 4:00 pm, Steven Edwards wrote:
--- Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Is wineinstall needed anymore? README seems to indicate you can install Wine just fine without it.
You can but Alexandre wants to keep it to make it easier for new Linux users to build and install Wine.
Thanks Steven
Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 05:24:22PM -0500, Chris Morgan wrote:
How is wineinstall easier than instructing them to run ./configure, make and make install? Having wineinstall implies that the script does something extra that wine needs that differs from the normal way you build and install a program from source.
Indeed, this is my position as well. Every time I have an app that needs aditional scripts then the standard ./configure, make and make install, I get nervous, and I simply distrust/dislike the application. It forces me to question, investigate, worry about what a heck is going on with my system. I don't like that. In fact, I hate it. I have administering my machine, and I especially hate when I'm forced to do it.
Anything that is standard (in this case ./configure, make and make install) sort of goes in the automatic part of the brain, you don't register it. The same holds true for common menu setup in apps, consistent UI, etc. When you deviate from the standard, you bring the action into the conscious part of the brain, you force a decision, you raise questions, and all that translate into more work/stress/etc for the user. Not Good (TM).
We should deviate from the standard only in cases where we have a *heck* of a lot of reason to, not for trivial benefits. Those end up costing us a lot more in the end.
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:55:37 -0800, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Is wineinstall needed anymore?
I think this was asked on #winehackers a month or so ago.
I think the issue was the config file - wineinstall still creates one, wineprefixcreate doesn't. (Nor should it create one since it's going away.) Drive detection might have been an issue too.
-Brian
-
Brian Vincent -
Chris Morgan -
Christian Britz -
Dan Kegel -
Dan McGhee -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
James Hawkins -
Joris Huizer -
M-Halo -
Steven Edwards -
Vincent Béron