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
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:10:08 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: has anyone tried latest setup.exe from cvs ?
Message-ID: <20011217011008.GA32497@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKIEOJCHAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <15fe01c1868c$af278230$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011217010408 DOT GB30991 AT redhat DOT com> <001f01c18696$df59df70$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001f01c18696$df59df70$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 12:05:08PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- 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.

I could be mistaken about this.  It's been a couple of months.  I don't
recall ever seeing lines like

version: 0

or

version:

though.

cgf