[F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 20:22 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> If anyone talks to David "the vulgar" Woodhouse, please pass on the following.

Do grow up if you want to be taken seriously, Axel. One comment about
masturbation over pointless statistics really doesn't count as a reason
to resort to the kindergarten "tell him I'm not talking to him" routine,
amongst normal adults.

> > He conveniently didn't show what he did to count them, of course.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:32:15PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > # cd /storage/public/mirror/download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/ppc/os/Fedora; ls *.ppc.rpm | wc -l
> > 3076
> 
> If that doesn't count as showing, I wonder what does. Does Mr. Right
> read the mail he replies to at all?

As the References: header makes clear, I didn't reply to that mail.
I received it only after sending the other mail you're quoting. 

> > But it doesn't matter -- I've already accepted his estimate of 14%,
> > which is fairly much in line with my own estimate and dramatically less
> > than his original "almost all specfiles" nonsense.
> 
> The nonsense (since Mr. Right continues to be offensive in language)
> is Mr. Right's mixing of statements to his liking.
> 
> Original: "packages carrying bin parts are the majority"
> 	  "14% are those packages that carry both bin and lib components"
> 
> So Mr. Right manages to compare apple and oranges, which is nonsense. QED.

You seem to have a short memory.
You said, in <20070427074939.GB31607 at neu.nirvana>:

-> o Rewrite almost all specfiles to sub-subpackage *-bin and manage the
->   conflicting bin suppackages

Christian said he was 'hardly convinced that represents "almost all
specfiles"', and I did a very quick estimation of some numbers, coming
up with a figure of about 10% or suggesting that we could push it up to
20% if we calculate differently. Then I accepted your 'correction' of
14%, and you still seem to want to go on about it.

I probably should have listened to those who told me to ignore you as a
kook, and not bothered to work out the numbers. As I already said, it
doesn't actually matter anyway. But I was willing to give you a chance
to prove them wrong and listen to what you had to say. I think I've
probably heard enough now.

> Let me summarize:
> 
> o sloppy to bogus stats and metric

The stats were very rough, yes -- I was only trying to back up
Christian's assertion that it wasn't "almost all specfiles". But since
they were so rough, I provided the working to go with them, so that they
could be improved if anyone cared. You did seem to care, and you
'corrected' me. My original estimate was the lower end of the 10%-20%
range. You corrected it to 14%, which I accepted readily. It really
doesn't matter.

> o misquoting

No, I think you're getting confused again. Every misquote I've seen has
been from your side. I really have no need to resort to such tactics --
especially when you harp on about the numbers I've already agreed with,
and send mail like the one I'm replying to.

> o vulgar talking

Yep, because that's really relevant to a technical conversation.

> are Mr. Right's contribution for a long-term, not short-sighted
> solution for the multilib problem.

I do appreciate the accolade, but there is no need for you to call me
'Mr. Right'. The technical side of the conversation stands up on its
own. Thank you, and goodbye.

-- 
dwmw2