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
