...I think perhaps the reality here, is that the .bin installer in
no way deals with any dependencies, missing or otherwise. It will
install crossover, 'if it can' (you have enough system supports for
that much to happen) -- beyond that, is user-land. For the record,
crossover is actually built on Debian, and tested against the current
'popular' derivatives of that distro was well, and in that regard,
the various .deb packaged versions of crossover are available, which
should (in a perfect world) take care of installing any required system
dependencies ... in theory anyhow...
... not that I'm a big fan of that solution, either -- it invites a
system wide installation of crossover in /opt whereas for a typical,
average, single user machine, you should be using the .bin installer,
not the .deb package, for an isolated installation in your $HOMEDIR ...
..anyhow, having already helped a Mepis user with this briar patch,
I can see where the wheels are falling off -- the issue is an artifact
of the 'rolling release' linux distribution model -- they prove to be
more mobile than mainstream linux distros ; and the other factor here,
is that with derivative distros are in no way obligated to structure
their layout (or base installation targets) as aligned with the 'parent'
distribution on which they are based. That is more than likely the case
here, wherein you have to install dependencies not already part of the
base system makeup...
... then, this spools off into a rock and a tight place sketch, wherein
is seems the only apparent solution would be to have the .bin installer
be able to detect a missing dependency, and alert the user that they will
have to install such'n'such first, and then rerun the installer (which
might in itself prove difficult depending on which dependency is missing =)...
..there is one thing you could do ... (..umm...where has this gone?)..ah!,
...see the top-most entries there vis howto get things going on this'n'that
linux distro? An entry for Mepis is noticeably missing ... you can send an
email to email@example.com asking if they might include an entry there
for Mepis 8.0 , and you can include in that a draft of 'what you think it
should look like' (or else just ask for them to draw upon the data here),
and I'd be 'reasonably confident' such would be accepted into the FAQ there..
...I think that's far and away the best way to deal with this right now, as
exampled by the existence of the other 'distrocentric' entries in the FAQ. In
that way, it's about as easy as it gets for specific linux distro users, and
the information is prominently available (as opposed to having the solution
nested in the general forums somewhere)...