On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 12:05:08PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>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
