5/2/02 1:22:21 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? - Michael