[Bug 169716] Review Request: fortune-firefly

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: fortune-firefly


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169716





------- Additional Comments From mpeters at mac.com  2005-10-04 15:52 EST -------
http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/fortune-firefly-1.7-2.mpeters.src.rpm
http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/fortune-firefly.spec

The above spec file generates the .dat file during build.
I also changed how it is packaged - you don't need to use a src tarball, you can
just use two text files for sources - the firefly file and the README.

Your original tarball I unpacked into ~/delete_me (that's a folder where I
unpack stuff I don't want to keep around - nothing personal)

I ran diff on the .dat file generated by the rpm file and your .dat file - and
they differ:

[mpeters at laptop tmp]$ diff --brief
fortune-firefly-1.7-2.mpeters-root-mpeters/usr/share/games/fortune/firefly.dat
~/delete_me/fortune-firefly-1.7/firefly.dat
Files
fortune-firefly-1.7-2.mpeters-root-mpeters/usr/share/games/fortune/firefly.dat
and /home/mpeters/delete_me/fortune-firefly-1.7/firefly.dat differ
[mpeters at laptop tmp]$

Why they differ I don't know, it could be as simple as a different encoding
timestamp in the .dat file. But the point is that there is no way to validate
the integrity of the .dat file.

By letting it be generated during the rpm building process, it is clear how it
was generated and what it was generated from.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.