Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22)
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:17:51PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
On 2003-11-24T11:01-0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
) On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
) For now it's just in my records. Even if it is
I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no source: entry
for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini fields.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:34:04AM -, Morrison, John wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22)
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:17:51PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
On 2003-11-24T11:01-0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
) On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:55:40AM -0500,
On 2003-11-25T20:53+1100, Robert Collins wrote:
) I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no
) source: entry for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini fields.
Were you suggesting using Maintainer: and relying on setup to ignore it?
(Neither
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:32, Daniel Reed wrote:
On 2003-11-25T20:53+1100, Robert Collins wrote:
) I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no
) source: entry for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini fields.
Were you suggesting using Maintainer: and relying on
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:32, Daniel Reed wrote:
On 2003-11-25T20:53+1100, Robert Collins wrote:
) I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no
) source: entry for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 11:25, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'm not sure why Maintainer: makes sense as a for-setup.ini field given
our stated policies.
It doesn't have to go into setup.ini - I was simply stating my confusion
about inventing a new syntax, when one already exists.
Rob
--
GPG key
