Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I get exactly the same thing as you do below when following these > steps. So it seems your patch in > 2122b01f-7627-cd1b-c7df-751c076f90ff@xxxxxx is just fine as-is and I > just screwed something up when testing this. > > Sorry about the noise. Since this works your original patch is obviously > preferrable since it's not duplicating the rule. OK. Unfortunately I screwed up and merged the revert already to 'next'. So I'll queue René's original again to 'next' and we'll only have one rule at the end. Thanks, both.
