From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-40591-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18953 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2005 21:19:52 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 18938 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2005 21:19:48 -0000
Received: from tully.cs.berkeley.edu (HELO tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU) (128.32.153.227)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:19:48 +0000
Received: from tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.7/8.12.7/3.141592645) with ESMTP id j7FLJj9S005659
	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (hilfingr@localhost)
	by tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) with ESMTP id j7FLJjSJ005656
	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200508152119.j7FLJjSJ005656@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Procedure for large drop? 
In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> 
   of "Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:37:09 EDT." <20050815133708.GA1460@nevyn.them.org> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5652.1124140784.1@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:50:00 -0000
From: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr@EECS.Berkeley.EDU>
X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2


> I'm of mixed minds as to whether this is necessary, but we do have a
> convenient place to put the file: ftp.sourceware.org/pub/gdb/contrib/.

Thanks. I'm not sure about this either, but 

1. The FSF is finicky about having documented assurances of code
   ownership (and rightly so).

2. HP's existing assignment agreement applies only to contributions 
   explicitly made by specific employees.

3. AdaCore does not own any of the code from which some of its planned
   submissions will derive; HP does.

So I conclude that some sort of symbolic act is needed so that AdaCore
will clearly be submitting mods to sources clearly assigned to the FSF.

Again, thanks for your help.

Paul Hilfinger