> That's all good.  But it's not publically accessible...  Is that
> intentional?

Sorry about this.   Originally, the permissions being user-read-only
were an oversight, but then I got some email from somebody who said
the patch didn't apply cleanly, so I wanted to redo the patch in a way
that I felt confident would apply cleanly.

I originally generated the patch with CVS, which is supposed to work,
but sometimes produces bogosity.  I just regenerated the patch.  This
time I checked out against the 1.3.1 tag and untarred the official
source release tar files, and did the diff between the two resulting
source trees.  The result should now apply cleanly to a tree that's
been put together by untarring the 1.3 source tar files.

The new diff is now in place on the ftp server.   I'm sorry for the
confusion about this.

			       _MelloN_