Sorry for the late reply - I just became a father last monday night :) Anyway, -15 is prev, -13 can be removed. The difference between -13 and -15 is that the canonical patches released between -13 and -15 are applied to -15, and there's been a maintainer and packaging method change, but I don't think any of those changes will want people to keep -13 rather than -15.
I'll send an announcement shortly. rlc On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:58:22PM -0400, Daniel Reed wrote: > On 2003-10-20T15:22+0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > ) I've applied cgf's patch to Bash and test-driven it on my machine. The new > ) version is available here: > ) > ) e148fb06b6c856a591a985d86361da15 *bash-2.05b-16-src.tar.bz2 > ) http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/bash/bash-2.05b-16-src.tar.bz2 > ) 837f987c5c5cbceb773bf14a32060bac *bash-2.05b-16.tar.bz2 > ) http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/bash/bash-2.05b-16.tar.bz2 > > Uploaded. Please send an announcement once you have had a chance to verify > correct installation with setup.exe. > > > Should I remove 2.05b-13? Corinna asked earlier (I was waiting for a reply > before pushing) which is why I am unsure. There are no overrides in > setup.hint, so everyone should be running 2.05b-15 at present, and should > automatically upgrade to 2.05b-16 the next time setup is run. > > Thanks for the update, > -- > Daniel Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://naim-users.org/nmlorg/ > http://naim.n.ml.org/ > "A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep." -- Code like that would not pass through anybody's yuck-o-meter. - Linus Torvalds about design on linux-kernel