I had that idea several years ago when i first chucked tthe idea on the table. The "common art installer".
The answer came back as a "no, but"
The problem with it is:
- raw maintance. It would mean maintaining up to 10 different installers. The five as we know it, and the five common art installers. Which boils down to man power.
- distribution. It would mean yet another file to have to haul around. With extra data that wouldn't be needed for a given user. At the time data ppipe weren't as big as they are now.
The other side of the question:
-simplicity. It would mean the only on file would haveto be hauled around.
I don't think at the time there a tool that could automagically build that set of installers.
The cousin concept is an "artless" installer. Basically and installer with enough art to run the updater. Well see above.