I think the player could be installed unconditionally.  Sometimes it's useful to compare the player that was last installed to the one that has just been compiled.  Distros that don't like it can strip the player from the package.  Users compiling swfdec for themselves should have no problems installing the player.

I don't think installed tools and testsuite would be very useful.  OK, maybe the tools could be useful, but not the testsuite.

I don't wnt to install the player as it's a test application and has too many confusing options. If you want an installed player, use swfdec-gnome.
I might want to isntall the testsuite runner at some point because it's supposed tto be abstracted, so you could run tests with Adobe's player or Swfdec. But that doesn't work properly yet.
Same for the tools: They are very rough tools and use internal APIs, so I don't want to install them.

If I wanted to write installable tools, I'd put them in a seperate package and polish them properly.

Which is why I'm closing this as WONTFIX.

(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't wnt to install the player as it's a test application and has too many
> confusing options. If you want an installed player, use swfdec-gnome.

Sorry for suggesting that. I thought a compilation option wouldn't be so problematic. I would use swfdec-gnome, but the issue here is that the latest stable release cannot be compiled against swfdec-0.7.2 (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16634#add_comment).

Thanks for your excellent work,


Pablo

It's not abut the option, it's about the image the project presents to the user. And I'd like Swfdec to not be regarded as a project that ships semi-complete crap. :)

Thanks for the explanation, Benjamin.

The issue is clear now.


Pablo