(In reply to comment #20) > I found that the original patch doesn't suffer from this issue, > can you confirm this?
I can confirm that attachment 32100 doesn't break KDE 3.5 for me. cf72b5437d2d620521279077a29c5df6d0fbb576 did, as I wrote in comment 22.
(In reply to comment #20)
> I found that the original patch doesn't suffer from this issue,
> can you confirm this?
I can confirm that attachment 32100 doesn't break KDE 3.5 for me. 521279077a29c5d f6d0fbb576 did, as I wrote in comment 22.
cf72b5437d2d620