Re: has anyone tried latest setup.exe from cvs ?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 10:52:11AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
>>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.

I don't think that update-setup produced version: lines for packages
which had no actual version info, either.  I recall having to work
around this when I worked on setup.exe.

I can't glean enough of what this thread was about from context but I
seem to recall that this was actually the problem of entries that had no
version, no install, no sources, i.e., the package directories were
empty.

That was my screwup, since rectified.

upset is rather weak on complaining about things like that but it should
do so eventually.  I'll make it issue a warning and skip the directly
entirely.

cgf