>>> Your new patch needs a header, explaining why, and adding
>>> Upstream-Status and Signed-off-by tags.
>>>
>> I meant this only as an RFC, to get feedback for my patch, from a
>> functional point of view, it is not intended to be the final patch.
>> I have a Signed-off-by tag, are you referring to something else?
>> Can you give me more details about Upstream-Status? I've google'd this
>> problem for a bit but could not find an existing patch for it, nor a bug
>> filled for this matter. Since I don't know yet if what I'm fixing it's
>> really a bug (or a misconfiguration on my side) I send this RFC to get a
>> hold of whether I'm on the good track here or not. If this patch turns
>> out to be valid, I'll get in touch with the guys from coreutils' mailing
>> lists, and try to push it upstream.
>
> Radu,
>
> For patches included in a given recipe we also have Signed-off-by as 
> well as the Upstream-Status tag as defined by:
>
> http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
>
> Please review this again.
Soul,
I understood your point, and in the *actual* patch I will update the 
Sign-off-by and a short description, and an Upstream Status. However, I 
reviewed again  Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines and there is nothing in 
there mentioned about RFCs. This is an RFC, and it was intended to get a 
quick feedback from people more familiar/experienced with 
coreutils/autotools. I need feedback about the functional change of this 
patch. In my first reply I described as extensively as I could my 
problem and my question.

As far as the RFCs go, how long should I wait on an RFC? It's been more 
then a few days and nobody commented. Would it be appropriate to assume 
that if nobody had any comments, the patch is valid?

Radu