-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daniel O'Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had the same problem. This kind of initiative by the package > shouldn't be so passive. It should be corrected, or one might find > themselves frustrated.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand what you mean. What problem did you have? It may be "the language barrier", but I just couldn't comprehend correctly of what you say above. I apologize, but could you rephrase? - -- Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://erppimaa.ihku.org/> | <0x1410081E> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9qgM7AtEARxQQCB4RAjj+AJ9lY8sY9bBBCPMQq0ZBgc5+K31YDACeLzTi lSuydxY6IYlGG6F4g/SXCvk= =MbfS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
