From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <insight-return-4531-listarch-insight=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 19469 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2003 16:09:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:insight-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/insight/>
List-Post: <mailto:insight@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:insight-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: insight-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 19447 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2003 16:09:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 2003 16:09:03 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7EG92t17300
	for <insight@sources.redhat.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:09:02 -0400
Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7EG92s16632
	for <insight@sources.redhat.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:09:02 -0400
Received: from [150.1.200.14] (vpn50-56.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.56])
	by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7EG90ED032551;
	Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:09:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Don't recognize 'option' in midst of prefs line
From: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Cc: "insight@sources.redhat.com" <insight@sources.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <vt27k5g3k3c.fsf@zenia.home>
References: <vt27k5g3k3c.fsf@zenia.home>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1060877382.1572.25.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:09:00 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2

On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 22:05, Jim Blandy wrote:

> It seems like something similar should be done for the case
> immediately above this one, for section markers.  But I don't really
> know enough about the official syntax of Windows config files to say
> for sure.

Better question is: why is this line even necessary? I don't see
anything that would cause the word "option" to be output by anything.
That particular line has been in there from the get-go, and I don't
recall every having seen a preference file with "option" in it (unless
it was the name of an exe or something).

Assuming that it is necessary, your patch looks correct (as do your
comments about the preceeding line). Please commit them.

Thanks!
Keith