On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:02:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > ...and from elsewhere in the thread, unless you install carefully > > > > (install -p) it's not just generated files that'll mismatch but even > > > > header files that were copied into a devel rpm. > > > Well, my view is converse: "install -p" doesn't solve anything, because > > > it doesn't work on generated files. > > > > Right. Originally, the reason why "install -p" and "cp -p" have made > > it into pkg review comments is only that _old_ files from tarballs (or > > additional SourceX tags) stay _old_ when copying them into the rpm > > buildroot -- i.e. their old timestamps are preserved. That way the pkg > > users > ^^^^^^^ => It's just convenience to cater certain user habits. > > Technically, it's sense-free eye-candy. I don't disagree. Except that I see the value in preserving [old!] timestamps as explained in the prev.msg. > > can see the age of files more easily and see when a file has > > been updated last. > > > There is a relevant use-case for %doc and %config > > at least. > How? %doc are completely irrelevant to an installed system, Why? > for %config > it's contents that matters (did the files contents change?), not > timestamps. Yes, sure, but for changed contents we have the *.rpmnew/*.rpmsave mechanism already. For config file templates, default config files or [init]scripts we don't. Why pretend that a config file (or a file added via SourceX) is from 2007-10-21 when in fact it has not been changed for several years? Such a superfluous change in the timestamps also can result in an unneeded IDS report everytime a pkg is updated. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
