Branden Robinson wrote: > Uh, no, there isn't.
Oh, I guess you are right...my bad...but it does build fine without 017. I thought that depend:: meant it was adding to the existing rule. I confused the other depend::<whatever> rules. I thought they would take the place of the empty depend::. wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
