Is it time to delete wineinstall?
jorishuizer at planet.nl
Wed Nov 17 15:20:43 CST 2004
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elsewhere; And the documentation will be outdated if that file isn't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,
More information about the wine-devel