On Monday May 26 2008 04:30:53 Bamm wrote: > env WINEPREFIX="/home/bamm/apps/starrynight" wineprefixcreate > ... > I know I can use wineboot in its place, e.g., > ... > env WINEPREFIX="/home/bamm/apps/starrynight" wineboot > ... > but I find this very counterintuitive. Well I guess for most of old advanced users this is intuitive. For example, I personally often create a lot of WINE prefixes and have some scripts that use wineprefixcreate. After wineprefixcreate became deprecated all of my scripts are using wineboot now (and I didn't asked anyone because it was obvious to me that wineboot is the replacement; I don't say that this should be obvious for everyone - reread my first message in this topic), and I use wineboot in the terminal too when I need to create WINE prefix manually. Works perfectly. For new users use of wineboot is as intuitive as use of wineprefixcreate so no problem here either. > That wineboot now also creates a prefix does not make it a command to create > a prefix. Wrong. It does. And this is very intuitive - first boot bootstraps WINE prefix if it doesn't exist. > I argue that for clarity we should still have a wineprefixcreate command, > even if all it does it to run wineboot. (which is really what it does). Then why not try to send a patch or if you are unsure ask on IRC/wine-devel is this acceptable or not. > > > People may have their reasons why they would want to modify an > > > environment before running a program there. > > > > So they use winecfg or something. Big deal. > > Sure, except that I am too lazy to want to open and close the winecfg > window unless I really intend to use it. Then use wineboot. > I can see that you don't mind opening another program just to create a > prefix. Well I do. Again, use wineboot. It doesn't open any program and works as fast (or even faster) than wineprefixcreate.
