Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <001f01c18696$df59df70$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKIEOJCHAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <15fe01c1868c$af278230$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011217010408 DOT GB30991 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: has anyone tried latest setup.exe from cvs ?
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:05:08 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2001 01:04:58.0547 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8E95030:01C18696]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: has anyone tried latest setup.exe from cvs ?


> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 10:52:11AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
> >>i.e., that have no "version:" lines in them (what is such an entry
> >>supposed to mean, or is this actually a upset bug?).  The parser
then
> >>never creates a
> >
> >Chris, do you consider version: to be mandatory for setup.ini files?
> >
> >setup.html doesn't specify (AFAICT) whether version: is optional or
> >mandatory.  If the decision hasn't been made, I'd prefer mandatory.
>
> It's optional for setup.exe, certainly.  There are a few packages for
> which there is no version: info.  I think I nuked one of them
yesterday,
> though.

Ah. I'll make setup.exe robust again - at the moment it dies if there is
no version: entry for a package in setup.ini.

Thanks,
Rob