On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Jeremy White wrote:
> [snip]
> > > E. [Controversial] Do *not* install a /etc/wine.conf
> > > file. IMHO, since the global wine configuration
> > > is IMHO misleading, we shouldn't install one by
> > > default.
> >
> > Misleading? Care to elaborate?
>
> AFAIK, the global wine configuration has no effect if
> you have a local .winerc. Since I think almost everyone
> will run with a ~/.winerc (so the Wine settings can
> be tweaked at user level, not by root), I feel that
> is misleading.
I always just chown the global wine.conf myself, if I need to tweak it...
I've never used .winerc, I find it a lousy way to do it... maybe even the
coward's way out...
> As a consequence, I should defer discussion of this to
> others. However, aren't there issues with language
> selection and arbitrating shared access to registry files
> that are going to be hard?
Not particularly. The issues we have aren't very serious, at least not
serious enough to not do proper packaging.
> See, and I think that all of this should be (and is
> currently) done by winecfg, and that all of these
> files should go under ~/.wine/drivec. AFAIR, having
> a drive C that is not writable (as per /usr/share/wine/drivec)
> has triggered know bugs in Wine.
Perhaps they should be fixed then? Anyway, I think that this fake Drive C
should represent the system Windows installation, it should not be where
the user actually works (saves documents etc). We should configure it
exactly like a multiuser networked Windoze deployment would be configured;
the Windows dir isn't writable in such a setting either.
> IMO it is a mistake to attempt to create a working
> wine.conf file without asking the user the most critical
> Wine configuration question: Do you want to use your Windows
> partition or not? I believe that user complaints and
> questions can be drastically reduced by forcing this step.
That means that pretty much everything should be autogenerated
post-install, then.
