[Bug 524332] Review Request: dualscreen-mouse-utils - Utilities for use with dual head setups using independend screens

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524332





--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com>  2009-09-29 05:07:54 EDT ---
> I had a similar conversation on IRC and the outcome was that the
> timestamps are quite important for noarch packages.

How important is "quite important"? If there is somebody who spreads rumours
like that, I'd prefer a public email in a more relevant and more appropriate
place. IRC conversations are quite unimportant.

The current guideline on preserving timestamps (which is worded as a
recommendation: "consider using") is based on two simple facts: 1) For files
whose content doesn't change with rebuilds or upgrades of a package, with
preserved mtime timestamps package end-users can easily recognise the age of
files (which may be a hint about the age of the software, too) and also
recognise old/out-of-date documentation. That's not something of importance, it
can be plain helpful. 2) For files that don't change with rebuilds or upgrades
of a package (in particular not in terms of a checksum change), we don't want
such files to trigger a report of external system integrity checkers because of
mtime changes. [During intrusion detection, for example, a changed mtime (even
with an unchanged file checksum) means that someone/something has written to a
file.]

And we're not talking about embedded timestamps here, which are part of a
file's data and influence the file's checksum.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.