On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 11:33:09AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >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.
As you mentioned, inilex.l already parses the Maintainer: field. I don't know why setup.exe would need this functionality.