List Info

Thread: New: ??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs from 32bit?
New: ??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs from 32bit?
country flaguser name
United States		 2007-02-09 12:07:26 
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
228043

           Summary: ??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp
differs from
                    32bit?
           Product: Fedora Core
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: low
          Priority: low
         Component: spamassassin
        AssignedTo: wtogamiredhat.com
        ReportedBy: wtogamiredhat.com
                CC: fedora-perl-devel-
                    listredhat.com,felicitykluge.net,jmjmason.org,parkerm
                    pobox.com,reg+redhatsidney.com,wtogamiredhat.com


Odd minor problem... low priority.

/usr/share/man/man1/sa-update.1.gz differs by the following
unidiff between the
32bit and 64bit architecture builds of spamassassin.

--- 32  2007-02-09 12:46:19.000000000 -0500
+++ 64  2007-02-09 12:46:10.000000000 -0500
 -129,7
+129,7 
 ."
============================================================
============
 ."
 .IX Title "SA-UPDATE 1"
-.TH SA-UPDATE 1 "2006-07-30" "perl
v5.8.5" "User Contributed Perl
Documentation"
+.TH SA-UPDATE 1 "2007-01-22" "perl
v5.8.5" "User Contributed Perl
Documentation"
 .SH "NAME"
 sa-update - automate SpamAssassin rule updates
 .SH "SYNOPSIS"

This appears to be the only difference in version 3.1.7. 
Notice that the 32bit
version retained the original source timestamp, while the
64bit version somehow
decided to differ in this behavior by changing the timestamp
to the build date.
 The above example is 3.1.7 built on RHEL4, but this
persists through perl-5.8.8
in FC7 too.

While this appears to create a multilib conflict, in
practice this is not a real
problem because spamassassin is based on perl, and we don't
ship both archs in a
multilib distribution.

This bug is merely to figure out *why* it is behaving in
this strange way
betweeen 32bit and 64bit builds.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?t
ab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone
who is.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
ht
tp://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-per
l-devel-list
??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs from 32bit?
country flaguser name
United States		 2007-02-09 12:08:51 
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
report.

Summary: ??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs
from 32bit?


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
228043





------- Additional Comments From wtogamiredhat.com  2007-02-09 13:08 EST -------
Oops, spamd.1 manpage also differs.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?t
ab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone
who is.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
ht
tp://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-per
l-devel-list
??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs from 32bit?
user name
 2008-05-06 20:09:23 
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
report.

Summary: ??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs
from 32bit?


ht
tps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=228043


fedora-triage-listredhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
             Status|NEEDINFO                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                           
|INSUFFICIENT_DATA




------- Additional Comments From fedora-triage-listredhat.com  2008-05-06 21:09 EST -------
This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than 30 days since
feedback was
first requested. As a result we are closing it.

If you can reproduce this bug in the future against a
maintained Fedora
version please feel free to reopen it against that version.

The process we're following is outlined here:
ht
tp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp

-- 
Configure bugmail: h
ttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone
who is.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
ht
tp://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-per
l-devel-list
??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs from 32bit?
user name
 2008-05-07 03:02:18 
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
report.

Summary: ??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs
from 32bit?


ht
tps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=228043


paulcity-fan.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
                 CC|                            |paulcity-fan.org
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
           Keywords|                            |Reopened
         Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA           |
  Status Whiteboard| bzcl34nup                  |bzcl34nup
            Version|rawhide                     |8




------- Additional Comments From paulcity-fan.org  2008-05-07
04:02 EST -------
This issue is still present in Fedora 8:

$ rpm -qlpv spamassassin-3.2.4-1.fc8.i386.rpm | grep -E
'(sa-update|spamd).1'
-r--r--r--    1 root    root             4812 Jan  7 18:46
/usr/share/man/man1/sa-update.1.gz
-r--r--r--    1 root    root            10310 Jan  7 18:46
/usr/share/man/man1/spamd.1.gz

$ rpm -qlpv spamassassin-3.2.4-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm | grep -E
'(sa-update|spamd).1'
-r--r--r--    1 root    root             4812 Jan  7 18:47
/usr/share/man/man1/sa-update.1.gz
-r--r--r--    1 root    root            10310 Jan  7 18:47
/usr/share/man/man1/spamd.1.gz


-- 
Configure bugmail: h
ttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone
who is.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
ht
tp://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-per
l-devel-list
??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs from 32bit?
user name
 2008-05-07 03:09:15 
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
report.

Summary: ??? 64bit sa-update.1 manpage timestamp differs
from 32bit?


ht
tps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=228043


paulcity-fan.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE




------- Additional Comments From paulcity-fan.org  2008-05-07
04:09 EST -------
Whoops, this bug is referring to the timestamp *in* the file
rather than the
timestamp *of* the file. In spamassassin-3.2.4-1.fc8 these
files are identical
in content between i386 and x86_64 so I'll close the bug
again. Sorry for the noise.

-- 
Configure bugmail: h
ttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone
who is.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
ht
tp://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-per
l-devel-list
[1-5]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )