Re: Changing include to include/xercesc

[Jason E. Stewart]

"Murray Cumming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> As ususual, I'm reposting in the hope of an official reply:

Hey Murray,

Unfortunately, the archive doesn't provide a clear reason for doing
this. Could you summarize the issue again since things have changed.

1) what is broken that needs fixing

2) how would moving the includes to include/xercesc fix it

3) what are the drawbacks

Thanks,
jas.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]