[MPlayer-users] Why not make an installer?

[Martin]

> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:38:18 +0200
>
> Martin <lagitus at mbnet.fi> wrote:
> > Since making a RPM-type installable binary package for all distros is not
> > possible, why not make an installer?
>
> Unless MPlayer was statically linked (which probably isn't possible) the
> binary would require a specific version of each library it was linked to.
> This is why binary packages are usually left up to the distributions.
>
> >  Since better performance is gained when compiling the software
> > oneself, the installer could do that as well. It could have scripts for
> > finding necessary configure paths (like --with-gtk-config) and a field
> > for custom configure flags for more advanced users.
>
> This is exactly what the configure script does. Perhaps you think MPlayer
> should come with a script that runs ./configure && make && sudo make
> install automatically? Or a frontend that just lists the configure options
> and then runs these scripts?
>
> I really don't understand the argument it's hard to compile software. .When
> I started using GNU/Linux, I -with my towering intellect- looked at the
> files, saw a  "README" file, read that I should read the INSTALL file, read
> that and followed the instructions, and by God it worked.
>
> > Using Loki Games' installer would give a half-finished solution
>
> This has certainly been my experience with it!
>
> But really, its the job of the distributions, not the people who write
> stuff like MPlayer, to make the programs easy to install. Also, I agree
> with Attila Kinali about the learning process; in the several years I've
> used Linux, I've gone from newbie to programmer simply by using the system
> more and more efficiently as I gradually learned how to do stuff. (Well, I
> did program some before I used Linux) On the other hand, Windows doesn't
> really teach you anything. So there. :P
>
> Joshua Rothenberg,
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTFM!!!  http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/DOCS
> Search:  http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/cgi-bin/htsearch
> http://mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/mplayer-users



OK. You've convinced me :-). Perhaps a GUI installer is not necessary but 
solving other problems that often arise from the configure/make procedure 
should be dealt with. IMO there are two places for improvement: configure 
failing and getting the correct codecs in the correct places with minimal 
confusion. If configure/make worked every time and finding a single 
collection of working codecs (with no overlapping file names in different 
bzips) were made easier then perhaps that is all the user friendliness that 
is needed.

Why not make a package (at least for stable releases) that has a default GUI, 
font and all the codecs included and the maybe configure building GUI support 
by default? That would make installation a lot easier and faster. More 
experienced users who want a faster download can always use the standard 
package or CVS.

I don't know much about the other distros but e.g. SuSE can't include most 
codecs due to licensing issues. That is why an easy to install codec add-on 
packs would be good (perhaps even featuring an installation script).


There is of course the question of what kind of users you want for Linux. Are 
users who are too lazy or ignorant to RTFM "worthy" of using Linux? I agree 
that helping n00bs can be very frustrating and having more of them seems like 
a nightmare. On the other hand this would be a relatively easy way to gain 
users which in turn would lead to better overall support for Linux. 
Installing MPlayer is an essential step for every new Linux user.

P.S.
If I'm wasting your time just tell me and I'll go away.