Re: [Bug 325193] New: Stripping of binaries

[Mark Rosenstand <mark borkware net>]

On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 01:36 -0700, Myles Green wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:34:10 +0100
> Mark Rosenstand <mark borkware net> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 22:22 -0700, Myles Green wrote:
> > > You wrote:
> > > Anyway, the gmake porting of it is so ugly that I'd be embarrassed
> > > to show it. It would be nice if someone could do it properly.
> > > 
> > > As you know, garnome is a volunteer effort, if you have some patches
> > > please feel free to contribute them. If you can't supply patches or
> > > aren't willing to volunteer your time to implement this then
> > > comments like you made are completely unnecessary and just plain
> > > rude. We need contributors not 1337 types, so put up (your patches)
> > > or shut up.
> > > 
> > > Some people.... :-/
> > 
> > Thanks for the great feedback. While I really appreciate your positive
> > attitude and apparently contributions, I would like to point out that
> > the bug was filed with severity "enhancement" on request from someone
> > who matters.
> > 
> > The link suggested a way to implement this apparently (did you ever
> > read gar.mk?) missing feature, so I thought it'd be worth to point
> > out.
> > 
> > I don't use GARNOME myself - I hang out in #garnome because of
> > interest in GAR.
> > 
> > > (I'll bet that his email address is bogus but who knows)
> > 
> > I wish it was if these are the comments you get. GNOME (and especially
> > GARNOME) is all about love, dude. Show us some :-)
> 
> Well, I do use garnome and have given some feedback but I wasn't nearly
> as negative as you were - or did you think that was _positive_
> feedback? From your comments I somehow got the idea you thought it was
> an ugly hack. I also got the idea that you figured you could do a
> better job, so I ask again where are your patches? As for reading
> gar.mk, no, not in it's entirety. So what? My point was and still is
> that you did not need to be so negative or rude. Why don't *you* show
> the developers some love? C'mon dude, I know you can do it. :-)
> 
> If I've come on a little too strong tonight it's only because I've seen
> three posts on as many different mailing lists that came across like
> some smart-ass who figured that the work done on some very worthwhile
> projects was all wrong and only they knew how it should be done. Oh and
> not one of the three posters bothered to attach any patches. I'll be
> the first one to admit that I am _not_ a programmer so the best I'll
> ever be able to to is test and give 99.999% guaranteed friendly, usable
> feedback.
> 
> Anyway, this is a waste of peoples bandwidth here on the list so if you
> wish to carry this on Mark I suggest we take this off-list.

It seems it's all been a misunderstanding. Currently, there is no strip
target in GAR (or there is, but it will only tell you that it isn't
implemented yet.) That's why I suggested this way to do it, as "not
implemented yet" implies that they want to implement it but haven't
figured out how yet. ("They" probably being Nick Mofit & Co. and not the
GARNOME developers, but I bet all are interrested in smaller packages
and speed boosts.)

The big misunderstanding is that when I wrote:

"Anyway, the gmake porting of it is so ugly that I'd be embarrassed to
show it. It would be nice if someone could do it properly."

... I was talking of the way *I* had tried to convert it from sh to
make. In other words: "I tried to do it, but it's too ugly to publish."

So it seems we all love each other anyway :-)

In this case it was just a misunderstanding, but in general, if you're
concerned about people's bandwidth, don't send hate mail to bug reports
and avoid CC'ing the mailing list.