Is it time to delete wineinstall?

[Vincent Béron]

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:
> 
> 1. 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.

> 2. 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