Karl Ramberg wrote:
> 
> John Hinsley wrote:
> >
> > Karl Ramberg wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Duuh. I mailed the wrong change set...
> > > Well, here we go again, rightone this time I hope ;-)
> >
> > I dunno. I renamed it, filed it in, and still get the same issues as
> > with the last version. Aaargh!
> >
> > I converted both to a sensible file type and ran diff on them (results
> > enclosed) and they are different, but it still looks to me as though
> > "makeATable" may be undefined.
> >
> Maybe a issue could arize if you have any of
> the previous HTMLTable change sets loaded in the image.

Could be. I've created a problem for myself in that I filed the original
changeset straight in. I did try with a fresh(ish) 3.0 image and
changeset but, of course, this chucks up a whole new series of errors
because (I guess) it's not up to date enough :-(  It's getting like one
of those horrible Linux issues where you want package "y", which depends
on package "c", "d" and "e". Everything goes fine until package "e"
which requires a couple of header files from the development version of
package "f" (you've only got the "ordinary" version installed). The "f"
libraries are so obscure that even the developer of package "y" can't
offer any help and, of course, installing the development version of
package "f" requires re-compiling the kernel. Even then, you suspect
that make will pop up with another error.

All this week has been like that........

I'll probably try and get hold of a pristine 3.0 and combine that with
Lex's latest source -- there's some junk in all my 3.0s that I could do
without.

If anyone gets this changeset installed and up and running, please let
me know.

But the screenshot looks great. I wonder if there's a way of getting rid
of the black borders round the morphs? 


Cheers

John
-- 
They're afraid, very afraid......
According to CRN magazine, Microsoft staff discovering Linux in use
will have now access to a special 'escalation' team.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/16/0310222&mode=nocomment