Frederick Bruckman wrote:

> I intend to commit this within the next few days unless there are
> significant objections. Key features:

Looks good - I like the idea of extracting the existing RCS id and not
using the "tail +2" hackery.  The only thing I'd change is to add a line
indicating that the patchsum had been updated as well, like:

> + 	if cmp -s ${PATCH_SUM_FILE}.new ${PATCH_SUM_FILE} ""; then	\
> + 		${RM} -f ${PATCH_SUM_FILE}.new;				\
> + 		${ECHO_MSG} "patch-sum file unchanged!";		\
> + 	else								\
		${ECHO_MSG} ">> Updating ${PATCH_SUM_FILE}";		\
> + 		${MV} ${PATCH_SUM_FILE}.new ${PATCH_SUM_FILE};		\
>   	fi)
>   .endif

Do we consistantly use or not use a ">> " at the start of informational
messages?

Simon.