> And rpm-wise, would a separate package like mtx not be built (and > fixed) separately with bacula having a dependency on it? That way it > needs to be patched only once rather than for each package that may > include it...
There you go thinking again. That's an old argument I've had repeatedly with the Bacula maintainers. They Have Always Done It This Way And They Like It This Way, Even If It Causes Problems For Everyone Else. My response to that was less than favorable. Hrmph. -- db ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
