Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688315 --- Comment #7 from Kaleb KEITHLEY <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-07 11:36:29 EDT --- >> N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are >> 1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines. > >Hm, odd. On my system, both the SRPM and the gem file both have valid >timestamps. I wonder what the deal there is. Not the SRPM and gem, the files in the gem. If you untar the gem -- the data.tar.gz and metadata.gz files have 1969-12-31 dates. And then if you untar data.tar.gz, the files it contains have those same dates. Maybe it's not an issue -- I noticed it when I unpacked the gem to check the license. >> use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively. >> (Is this another gem2rpm bug?) > > Hm. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros says: > > "Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a > need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For > example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is > acceptable." > > I left the rm, mkdir, and cp as-is based on that. I missed that in the guidelines. On that basis I'm fine with it. I'll recheck the new one shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review