On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:00 +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > but it seems it was needed for this test. > > Do you mean "wasn't needed"?
Exactly. Sorry, that was a typo. I didn't need it, and the image built and worked without the patch.
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:00 +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > but it seems it was needed for this test.
>
> Do you mean "wasn't needed"?
Exactly. Sorry, that was a typo. I didn't need it, and the image built
and worked without the patch.