> 04.07.2012 22:11, Thomas Steinmaurer wrote: >> >> Has this changed for the combination 2.1/2.5? AFAIK people successfully >> did that with 2.0/2.1? > > This is v2.5 specific. It was not intended, but it looks being > unavoidable either. v2.5 names security classes in a way that prior > versions don't accept.
Alright. Makes sense. Thanks. -- With regards, Thomas Steinmaurer http://www.upscene.com/
