RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Morrison, John
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. Eve

RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Robert Collins
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: . signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Christopher Faylor
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 10:55:40

RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Daniel Reed
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/

RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Robert Collins
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

Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Christopher Faylor
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

Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Robert Collins
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

Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Christopher Faylor
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

Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)

2003-11-25 Thread Robert Collins
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 11:44, Christopher Faylor wrote: > As you mentioned, inilex.l already parses the Maintainer: field. > I don't know why setup.exe would need this functionality. It needs it to process debian Sources files correctly. (which it does). Rob -- GPG key available at: