Are PPCRE functions currently being used in PET? If not, that would explain why this problem wasn't noticed earlier. Even if the change does cause the linker to favor rmrs over PPCRE, this still doesn't sound like a permanent solution. I think I will continue to persue a solution on the ECL/PET side of things. Eric <div>On 11/6/06, Ben Waldron <<a href="mailto:bmw20@cl.cam.ac.uk">bmw20@cl.cam.ac.uk </a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The 'convert.lsp' file will be there the same as before in the CL-PPCRE module. Hence the name clash will still occur. It's quite possible that the linker could flip back to taking the file it finds in the RMRS directory again (eg. the behaviour before it flipped this summer)... Thanks for working on this. If it's going to help you, I can do the upgrade sooner rather than later. - Ben Eric Nichols wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm still trying to solve the file name conflict between ppcre and the > rmrs module. > Will the upgrade have any bearing on this? > > Eric > > On 11/6/06, * Ben Waldron* <<a href="mailto:bmw20@cl.cam.ac.uk">bmw20@cl.cam.ac.uk</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:bmw20@cl.cam.ac.uk"> bmw20@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>>> wrote: > >     Ben Waldron wrote: >     > We are currently using version 1.2.3 of CL-PPCRE. The most recent >     > version is 1.2.18. This incorporates a number of bug fixes (none of >     > which appear to directly affect our code). I would like to >     upgrade the >     > LKB to the latest version. Does anyone have any reason to want >     to keep >     > the current version? (tsdb tells me it is safe to upgrade.) >     I've heard no objections, so I plan to go ahead and upgrade to >     CL-PPCRE >     1.2.18 later this week. > > > > > -- > --Eric Nichols </blockquote></div> -- --Eric Nichols