Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yeah, that's why I emailed the list twice before > asking how to go about it. Is making a static SMB > library preferrable? I haven't yet discovered the > interface MS uses to SMB (public or private), so I > haven't been able to hide it in the real place.
As I said already, IMO the file I/O stuff should go in the kernel. The current approach is broken, as you noted in your FIXMEs. > As far as not building properly, umm.. it builds and > runs for me. You think one dll might link stale .o's, > or?? Yes it breaks parallel makes. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
