| 1 |
On 02/24/19 04:04, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2019-02-23 at 22:19 -0800, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:30 PM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> On 02/20/19 02:36, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>>> # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules) |
| 11 |
>>>>>> - prune_libtool_files --all |
| 12 |
>>>>>> + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>> Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"? |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that |
| 17 |
>>>> 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going to |
| 18 |
>>>> see many packages installing '*.la' non-files. |
| 19 |
>>>> |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> Just so we are all clear here: your argument is that more fully correct |
| 22 |
>>> approaches should not be considered in the present and future because |
| 23 |
>>> less fully correct approaches were implemented in the past? And, |
| 24 |
>>> further, that since nothing matching a specific pattern happens to come |
| 25 |
>>> to your mind at he moment, such things do not exist? Perhaps dialing |
| 26 |
>>> back the rhetoric from 11 and considering feedback as an opportunity to |
| 27 |
>>> improve existing code is called for in this case, among others. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> I think you might be reading more into this than was intended. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> I read his email as lamenting that the horse has left the barn, so to |
| 32 |
>> speak. There are already hundreds of uses of find -name '*.la' -delete |
| 33 |
>> without -type f in the tree, probably in large part because |
| 34 |
>> ltprune.eclass suggests the form without it. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> Suggesting dialing down the rhetoric when it appears that you have |
| 37 |
>> overreacted is a bit humorous. |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> He simply decided to stalk me and issue ad hominem attacks whenever he |
| 41 |
> can. It's how professionals in Gentoo react to critique. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
I am hardly "stalking" you. I am addressing bad ideas and poor |
| 44 |
maintainer behavior, that it happens to be yours is immaterial to me. |
| 45 |
Besides, you effectively demanded that I participate more broadly[1], so |
| 46 |
do kindly pick one sort of libel and stick to it. As contradicting |
| 47 |
yourself not only weakens your argument (were it to have a basis to |
| 48 |
begin with), it makes malicious intent more obvious. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
As for ad hominem attacks, do kindly present examples, I would be most |
| 51 |
interested in any which you can demonstrate are unjustified. When I ask |
| 52 |
if/how/why your behavior is acceptable for someone in your roles, I am |
| 53 |
seriously asking that question. I want to know the rationale, especially |
| 54 |
under what are, at least nominally, the rules governing the interactions |
| 55 |
and behaviors which I am inquiring about. Though I will forego linking |
| 56 |
to that, as that evidently annoys you. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
[1] |
| 59 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/b498bcfaf34ffc355eaba3afafd1ee96 |
Archives