[Bug 201941] Review Request: tetex-elsevier

[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: tetex-elsevier


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-08-11 11:50 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> With the new src.rpm the timestamps are kept for the source files
> (normally I try to always keep the timestamps, and I used them
> to construct the version, although I made a mistake on the month).

Ah, I was wondering where that version came from, since it didn't match the
dates on the files.

> I also keep the timestamp for the installed files. The result is
> a spec which is rather verbose since I don't know how to preserve
> the creation date when copying a file. install -p and cp -p don't
> keep it.

How odd, cp -p should work and in fact it does seem to work for me; I commented
out the touch statements in %install and built in mock and the resulting package
had Apr 12 and May 16 for the .bst and .cls files, respectively.  Even the .pdf
files in %doc came out correctly.  I then commented out the first touch staement
in %prep and things were still OK.

However, even with an unmodified spec, the .tex files still came out with the
build time.  Perhaps it would be best just to leave things alone since they
really are being modified.

> Tell me if you prefer that I remove those changes.

I think it's useful to try and preserve the timestamps as possible, but just
using cp -p seems to work fine for me so the extra work seems unnecessary.

I wonder why you're seeing different behavior?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.