* Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com> [2006-01-09 09:31]: > The order of the patches is taken alphabetically, which means that after > the i.. patch, the l.. patch fails. > > The fix for me is obvious (renaming the new patch), but should we start > numbering the patches to force a certain order (and do this as a general > rule)? Yes, please, change the names of the patches by preceding them with a number. -- Rafael