On 11/5/05, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hm ... Looks like somebody has been shooting to fast and from the hip.
> PlusTools are not even an official package so they shouldn't actually be
> in that image. As you noticed, they do still require lots of work to be
> done and the primary reason for this tool set was to have one with which
> it is possible to fix the remaining issues after unloading the standard
> tools.
>
Which, I think, is exactly where we want to be going. I mean, the
stuff you put up worked, not? Any problems are caused by the painful
merge process (because of MC's shortcomings here, alas), so I think we
should fix the image and then start working towards transitioning
towards PlusTools.