On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Ryan Harkin <email address hidden> wrote:
> 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, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Ryan Harkin <email address hidden> wrote:
> 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.
OK, thanks for putting my mind at rest :)
---Dave