docu update

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

> 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.

-- 
Dimi.