[MPlayer-users] Why not make an installer?

[Ari Huttunen]

Martin wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> 
>>[Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
>>
>>jason <jason at doomba.com> writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 13:27, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is really just an issue for distributions to deal with, and it
>>>>seems mplayer has no need to deal with this.
>>>
>>>seems that of all parties involved, the distributions have the easiest
>>>solution.  they simply build a version optimized for each cpu type they
>>>support (like suse already does with kernels) and install the
>>>appropriate one.
>>
>>Certain distributions, such as Gentoo, provide a convenient system for
>>compiling the package with user-specified optimization flags and the
>>supporting compile-time features (such as lame, etc.).  So again, I
>>believe that since almost everyone uses a distribution, installation
>>convenience is in the realm of the distribution.
>>
>>[snip]
> 
> 
> I just installed MPlayer on a gentoo a few hours ago and I must agree, it went 
> amazingly smoothly.

I think the biggest problem with the distro package systems is that
the 'package' is not really tied into the source code version. That
is necessary because so many Linux users want to, at least occasionally,
compile SW instead of just installing a 'package'.

Like, I had the problem of an obsolete xvid library being in my system
and I compiled and installed a newer one. *If* the link between sources
and packaging systems existed, "make install" could have checked that
an earlier version of it exists, and would have told me to uninstall
that first. Similarly, if "make" required some other package that is
not already in the system, it could offer to install that one first.

Achieving that would be a big management task, but is certainly
possible. I would be surprised if others have not already thought
of this.

Ari