has anyone tried latest setup.exe from cvs ?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 12:05:08PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
>To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:04 PM
>Subject: Re: has anyone tried latest setup.exe from cvs ?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah.  I'll make setup.exe robust again - at the moment it dies if there
>is no version: entry for a package in setup.ini.

I could be mistaken about this.  It's been a couple of months.  I don't
recall ever seeing lines like

version: 0

or

version:

though.

cgf