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 fields. >> >> Were you suggesting using Maintainer: and relying on setup to ignore it? >> (Neither http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup-2.249.2.ini.html nor >> http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html seem to define a >> Maintainer: field.) > >See inilex.l and iniparse.y. Maintainer is fully parsed, in the manner >that it appears in debian Sources list files. > >The rest does make sense as not-for-setup.ini stuff.
I'm not sure why Maintainer: makes sense as a for-setup.ini field given our stated policies. cgf