5/2/02 1:48:03 PM, "Bruno G. Albuquerque" <bga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> That header should be replaced with a correct one and put into our >> >> sources. And put into the next installation preferably. This is >> > > much >> >> better than having people edit header files themselves (and >> >> potentially >> >> screw them up). >> > >> >Point is, it is a Be header. >> >> And why should this be a problem? > >I have no idea. But I guess it could. Also, it is possible that this >header has the definition of load_driver_symbols() but does not have >the definition of something else. I never really checked it. Sorry, I have not followed this thread from the beginning. I thought you had concerns about legal issues. - Michael