Re: [PATCH] Re: deletion of output files

[DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>]

Another note: libiberty patches go to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org.  You
can cc binutils or other lists if you want, but the gcc one is the
master copy, and that's where any patches would get applied (they get
mirrored to src).

> >Did you use "make maint-deps" to produce this part, or cut and paste?
> 
> Just cut-and-paste. I wasn't sure how Makefile.in would get generated
> (namely the one in cvs), and for this simple case it seemed appropriate
> to do this by hand. Just for my understanding of the processes here: if
> I regenerated it, would I still list this in the patch (and apply the
> delta once approved)?

Yes, and yes.  If the Makefile were 100% auto-generated, you could
omit it (like we do for configure changes), but it's not.  It's also
handy to include to make sure *other* things don't get changed
accidentally.

> >Copyright block required.
> 
> Odd (as so many things). I used another of the source files as
> template, and that one (getpwd.c) didn't have one either. But of course
> it's no big deal to copy one from one of those files that have it.

Please choose one that's lenient, LGPL plus the extra built-with-gcc
exception.  That will cause the least headaches later.  Unless, of
course, you as the author want it otherwise.