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

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:07:48PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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.

Ok, so repeatedly using vulgar talk, insults and further offencive
talk counts as adolescent behaviour for you? Maybe it does in some of
your social peer groups, but vulgarism is far beyond any netiquete and
unwritten "code of conduct" of the Fedora Project.

> > > 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. 

And as the contents of your mail that quote both Jesse's and mine
numbers that we "seventy-odd" apart show you had read that mail. So
the above is more than not reading, it shows that you are lying
now. If you resort to lies then please try to pass them in a less
obvious way.

> > > 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

Where does this reference "packages that contain bin and libs"? Why do
you continue to do apples vs oranges? Why don't you *read* before
replying?

> 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.

The 14% was a correction of your "we only need to split bins of libs"
revised model, not the real fact that you need to keep bins everywhere
in their own sub-subpackage. That's why it's a sub-subpackage. Please
try reading before replying.

So let's really count the packages that are affected. This involves
all package that have bins bundled together with something else, not
only libs, but config files, %lang and %docs. Out of 4468 specfiles
this affects 2616 which amounts to 59%.

I'll admit I would expect more ("almost all"), but whatever quanity
anyone associates with "almost all", 59% is nearer to that, than to
"10%". FWIW, even if I had said 100%, I would be a factor of 1.7 off,
while you are a factor of 5.9 off.

> I probably should have listened to those who told me to ignore you as a
> kook,

Thanks for continuing to teach me adolescent behaviour. I was warned
that you are easy on offending other people, but I wasn't aware that
you resolt to vulgarism.

> and not bothered to work out the numbers.

You didn't, you provided sloppy to bogus numbers all along with a hit
bogosity of a factor of 15! And when presented with the real numbers
you tell people that they masturbated. A very adolescent and
professional behaviour.

> 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 did prove you wrong. Does that account to an apology for telling me
that I masturbate?

> 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.

Don't twist the numbers. I corrected some numbers that you produced,
but the set of specfiles to fix (59%) are still closer to "almost
all", than to "10% with and overestimated 20% upper bound".

> > 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 --

But you did, in this very last mail again. I never refered with almost
all to bins-with-libs packages as you like to present it, and even
after correcting you as many times, you still present it that way.

> especially when you harp on about the numbers I've already agreed with,
> and send mail like the one I'm replying to.

Which you reply to w/o reading or understanding.

> > o vulgar talking
> 
> Yep, because that's really relevant to a technical conversation.

Well, I'm glad that you informed us about your style of technical
conversation, but I'm surely not allone if I ask to to refrain from
this immediately.

And please add

o lying

to the list of your contribution in this thread.

> > 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'.

Do you prefer Mr. Vulgar?

> The technical side of the conversation stands up on its own.

Indeed. Not only are the amount of packages to adjust to your proposed
model the majority indeed (59% specfile wise), but your model implies
file-level conflicts on all these 59% of packages that
rpm/yum/anaconda/smart/apt will choke on, does not allow coinstalls
and requires a switch from one arch to another to redownload the
packages.

> Thank you, and goodbye.

I'm still seeing you on these lists. I guess if you stop using
vulgar talk you could stay.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070428/6ac8bc19/attachment.sig>