James Hawkins wrote:
Is wineinstall needed anymore?
README seems to indicate you can install Wine just fine
without it.
You can but Alexandre wants to keep it to make it easier for new Linux
users to build and install Wine.
OK, but wineinstall seems to do more than wineprefixcreate;
shouldn't they do exactly the same thing when setting up
the registry and drives?
For many, wine is a stepping stone from windows to linux. It eases
the relocation process. For those people, ./configure, make, and make
install isn't so trivial or automatic. What they are used to is a
single setup.exe like in windows
Most people install RPMs, they don't build from source.
That's fine. I'm not arguing against having such a script
that does the configure / make / make install .
What I object to is that there is *duplicated code* between
wineprefixcreate and wineinstall, and it's already diverging.
e.g. wineinstall contains
if [ ! -d ~/.wine/dosdevices ]
then
[ -d ~/.wine ] || mkdir ~/.wine
mkdir ~/.wine/dosdevices
ln -s /mnt/fd0 ~/.wine/dosdevices/a:
ln -s $CROOT ~/.wine/dosdevices/c:
ln -s /cdrom ~/.wine/dosdevices/d:
ln -s /tmp ~/.wine/dosdevices/e:
ln -s ~ ~/.wine/dosdevices/f:
ln -s / ~/.wine/dosdevices/z:
fi
if [ "$WINEINSTALLED" = 'no' ]
then
tools/wineprefixcreate --update --use-wine-tree .
else
wineprefixcreate --update
fi
and wineprefixcreate contains
if [ ! -d "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices" ]
then
mkdir "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices"
[ -d "$WINEPREFIX/drive_c" ] || mkdir "$WINEPREFIX/drive_c"
ln -s "../drive_c" "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices/c:"
ln -s "/" "$WINEPREFIX/dosdevices/z:"
fi
Now, why the different list of drives in the two scripts?
And why does wineinstall have *any* of what's in wineprefixcreate,
since it then immediately calls wineprefixcreate?
Code forking is evil, and makes bugs harder to reproduce.
How 'bout we at least nuke the part of wineintall that
duplicates what's in wineprefixcreate?
- Dan
--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See
http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html
