Robert Collins wrote:
> Yeah. Just an additional data point: I don't precisely recall when we
> added that #error to the aufs code, but I think it was after 2.5Stable
> 1.
It was long after 2.5.STABLE1. I first wondered why we should have this
check, but as it does not hurt I did not comment, and now I am convinced
;-)
> So: that rpm *may* have been broken for 2.5S1, but we didn't detect the
> breakage.
Quite likely.
Regards
Henrik
Received on Mon Mar 24 2003 - 15:16:59 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:14:19 MST