A while back, we talked about deleting Wine install. What exactly does it do these days, and why do we still have it?
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
Last we discussed, wineinstall was kept to make it easier for newbies to install Wine. I'm not quite the newbie to Linux or Wine anymore, but I think I would still be a bit lost without it. From what I understand, there's more than "configure/ make/ make install" required to install Wine. Wineinstall nicely packages everything for ya! :)
Hiji
----- Original Message ---- From: Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org To: Wine Devel wine-devel@winehq.org Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:53:36 PM Subject: What purpose does wineinstall still serve?
A while back, we talked about deleting Wine install. What exactly does it do these days, and why do we still have it?
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
On 8/26/06, Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org wrote:
A while back, we talked about deleting Wine install. What exactly does it do these days, and why do we still have it?
It seems to be designed to avoid problem reports from people who don't really know what they're doing, i.e. who don't know what sudo is, who don't realize it's bad to try installing wine from source if you already have it installed as a package, who don't have all the needed packages installed, etc.
Conceivably some of the handholding it does could be moved into configure and into the Makefile. That might be a good idea. - Dan
On Monday 28 August 2006 14:48, Dan Kegel wrote:
It seems to be designed to avoid problem reports from people who don't really know what they're doing, i.e. who don't know what sudo is, who don't realize it's bad to try installing wine from source if you already have it installed as a package, who don't have all the needed packages installed, etc.
Conceivably some of the handholding it does could be moved into configure and into the Makefile. That might be a good idea.
But please make sure to add a "Yes, I know what I'm doing" option. I often find it useful to have a released version of a piece of software installed when working on some new features, and my paths are configured accordingly to support this kind of setup. It would be annoying to have "make install" fail just because I have a wine-whatever.rpm installed.
I know this feature is intended to make it easier for people to compile wine, but people who aren't comfortable with this should use precompiled packages. If there's some patches needed to make a certain game work, why not provide specialized packages for that? I think there's a package for ntoskernel.exe/copy protection patches out there, I see no reason we couldn't do that for other interesting patches. Using the Opensuse build server, this would be easy.
Cheers, Kai
On 8/28/06, Kai Blin kai.blin@gmail.com wrote:
Conceivably some of the handholding it does could be moved into configure and into the Makefile. That might be a good idea.
But please make sure to add a "Yes, I know what I'm doing" option.
Oh, yes. We would not want to move the package check into the Makefile. I was only thinking of things like making configure better at warning you if you're missing needed packages.
It would be annoying to have "make install" fail just because I have a wine-whatever.rpm installed.
Absolutely.
I know this feature is intended to make it easier for people to compile wine, but people who aren't comfortable with this should use precompiled packages.
I don't agree with this. For most software, I will use an RPM, but I refuse to use Wine RPMs. Either it is not optimized for my setup, or weird things happen (like I can't run anything unless I'm root.) Wine-install makes installing Wine simple and painless, and if you want to make and compile yourself w/o wine-install, you can do that too. So, there's no harm in keeping it around.
Hiji
-
Dan Kegel -
Hiji -
Kai Blin -
Scott Ritchie