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: wtogami@redhat.com ReportedBy: wtogami@redhat.com CC: fedora-perl-devel- list@redhat.com,felicity@kluge.net,jm@jmason.org,parkerm @pobox.com,reg+redhat@sidney.com,wtogami@redhat.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.
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 wtogami@redhat.com 2007-02-09 13:08 EST ------- Oops, spamd.1 manpage also differs.
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/show_bug.cgi?id=228043
fedora-triage-list@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| | bzcl34nup
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/show_bug.cgi?id=228043
fedora-triage-list@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
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/show_bug.cgi?id=228043
------- Additional Comments From fedora-triage-list@redhat.com 2008-04-03 15:04 EST ------- Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now, we will automatically close it.
If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.)
Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point.
The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp
We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again.
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/show_bug.cgi?id=228043
fedora-triage-list@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |INSUFFICIENT_DATA
------- Additional Comments From fedora-triage-list@redhat.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: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp
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/show_bug.cgi?id=228043
paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paul@city-fan.org Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA | Status Whiteboard| bzcl34nup |bzcl34nup Version|rawhide |8
------- Additional Comments From paul@city-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
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/show_bug.cgi?id=228043
paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
------- Additional Comments From paul@city-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.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla