On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 08:36:34PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >Looks a bit like multilib. E.g. config files existing in two packages,
> >an i386 and an x86_64 one.
> Well, in two cases that I looked at, that turned out to be true.
>
> Not sure if there were any exceptions. Maybe samba-common.
> I'll pay attention in the future when I see it happen next...
Well, samba-common has the same fate:
# rpm -qf --qf '%{name}-%{version}-%{release}@%{arch}\n' /etc/samba/lmhosts /etc/samba/smb.conf | sort -u
samba-common-3.0.23c-2@i386
samba-common-3.0.23c-2@x86_64
# TZ=C ls -l --full-time /etc/samba/lmhosts /etc/samba/smb.conf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 20 2006-09-02 02:59:06.000000000 +0000 /etc/samba/lmhosts
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9765 2006-09-02 02:59:06.000000000 +0000 /etc/samba/smb.conf
# rpm -V samba-common.x86_64 | grep /etc/samba
.......T c /etc/samba/lmhosts
.......T c /etc/samba/smb.conf
# rpm -V samba-common.i386 | grep /etc/samba
So, again the timestamps of the config files in the two coinstalled
packages differ and an upgrade will make one of them think the config
file was changed.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpsh2AYiKs00.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
