rpms/powertop/devel powertop-1.2-install-man-page.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 powertop.spec, 1.2, 1.3 sources, 1.3, 1.4 powertop-1.1-build-fixes.patch, 1.1, NONE
Michael E Brown
Michael_E_Brown at dell.com
Tue May 15 17:04:23 UTC 2007
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/powertop/devel powertop-1.2-install-man-page.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 powertop.spec, 1.2, 1.3 sources, 1.3, 1.4 powertop-1.1-build-fixes.patch, 1.1, NONE
- Next message (by thread): rpms/powertop/devel powertop-1.2-install-man-page.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 powertop.spec, 1.2, 1.3 sources, 1.3, 1.4 powertop-1.1-build-fixes.patch, 1.1, NONE
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:40:59AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 17:14 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:01:41AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > Author: ajax
> > > + mkdir -p ${DESTDIR}${MANDIR}
> > > + cp powertop.1 ${DESTDIR}${MANDIR}
> >
> > cp -p would keep timestamps. Maybe not worth it if powertop.1 is
> > generated, I haven't checked...
>
> It isn't. Why would I care about timestamp?
Packaging guidelines state that it is preferrable to keep timestamps on
installed files the same as what was packaged.
--
Michael
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/powertop/devel powertop-1.2-install-man-page.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 powertop.spec, 1.2, 1.3 sources, 1.3, 1.4 powertop-1.1-build-fixes.patch, 1.1, NONE
- Next message (by thread): rpms/powertop/devel powertop-1.2-install-man-page.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 powertop.spec, 1.2, 1.3 sources, 1.3, 1.4 powertop-1.1-build-fixes.patch, 1.1, NONE
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list