Re: [OT] Guido Draheim vs. Peter Simons vs. Rest of the World

[Peter Simons]

I am sorry to disturb your emotional "we should all be friends"-speech
with _facts_ once more. You wrote:

 > I did use the link to the sfnet [archive when answering questions,]
 > since I knew it was up to date while it became a common case the
 > the gnu part was possibly a few weeks thereafter.

You imply that the archive I maintain was lagging behind yours, right?
When I look at the complete list of CVS commits in your repository,
which one can generate in a checked-out copy with the rcs2log(1) tool
that comes with CVS, I see exactly three types of commits in the macro
area:

 (1) The ones that say: "sync with gnu ac-archive".

 (2) The ones that commit changes to files in the "guidod"
     subdirectory. (Or "rleigh", "braden", etc. to be accurate.)

 (3) The ones that commit changes to the directory tree used in
     original archive as well.

Everybody who's interested is invited to check this; the data is
publicly available.

If your archive was more up-to-date than mine -- and that is what you
claim --, we should see commits as evidence for that, right? Which
ones could that be ... I am sure we agree that group (1) does _not_
fall into this category. You were downloading content from the GNU
archive in this case.

How about group (2) then? The macros in the "guidod" directory are
doubtlessly ahead of the GNU archive simply because I never received
any updates from you. (We already talked about the ones in the GNU
archive that are _known_ to be obsolete.) The ones in the remaining
all-lower-caps directories could be in the GNU archive as well,
meaning that they were submitted to both of us. And you could possibly
have updated them faster than I did.

The macros is these areas that the GNU archive has too are:

    c_support/ac_func_mkdir.m4
    installed_packages/ac_config_libconfig_in.m4
    installed_packages/ac_config_pkgconfig_in.m4
    installed_packages/ac_path_lib.m4
    misc/normpath.m4
    misc/relpaths.m4
    misc/stdrelpaths.m4

All of these macros are identical in both archives today, meaning that
the last commit should be the one that added them -- unless someone
committed addition of empty lines or something. So here are the
respective CVS ID strings:

    $Id: ac_func_mkdir.m4,v 1.1 2001/03/02 11:39:22 simons Exp $
    $Id: ac_func_mkdir.m4,v 1.2 2001/08/25 20:16:41 guidod Exp $

    $Id: ac_config_libconfig_in.m4,v 1.2 2002/04/19 12:03:00 simons Exp $
    $Id: ac_config_libconfig_in.m4,v 1.4 2002/09/12 22:11:52 guidod Exp $

    $Id: ac_config_pkgconfig_in.m4,v 1.2 2002/05/06 11:47:30 simons Exp $
    $Id: ac_config_pkgconfig_in.m4,v 1.2 2002/09/12 22:11:38 guidod Exp $

    $Id: ac_path_lib.m4,v 1.2 2002/04/19 12:03:00 simons Exp $
    $Id: ac_path_lib.m4,v 1.3 2002/09/12 22:11:14 guidod Exp $

    $Id: normpath.m4,v 1.1 2001/05/25 08:38:31 simons Exp $
    $Id: normpath.m4,v 1.1 2001/07/26 01:12:10 guidod Exp $

    $Id: relpaths.m4,v 1.1 2001/05/25 08:38:31 simons Exp $
    $Id: relpaths.m4,v 1.1 2001/07/26 01:12:10 guidod Exp $

    $Id: stdrelpaths.m4,v 1.1 2001/05/25 08:38:31 simons Exp $
    $Id: stdrelpaths.m4,v 1.1 2001/07/26 01:12:10 guidod Exp $

Looks like my archive had _all_ of them before yours did. Conclusion:
None of the commits in group (2) were added to your site before they
were available on mine.

Ah ... you will love group (3). ALL of the commits in group (3)
are crystal clear evidence of you adding content to your archive that
was -- at the time -- not available in the GNU archive. So now guess
how many we have here:

    2002-12-13  guidod

        * Installed_Packages/adl_func_getopt_long.m4:
        update sent by Alexandre Duret-Lutz - obviously it seems the
         gnu ac-archive is dead as it has not been included there
         in the last weeks. Or may be that is the normal time span over there ?
         (adl_func_getopt_long.m4)
                                    (Formatting is yours, not mine.)

One macro in group (3). I actually took the time to check my mailbox
and guess what? I did not update the macro until today! I overlooked
the e-mail, I guess.

To summarize: There is ONE CASE where the SourceForge "branch" of the
macro archive was more up-to-date than the GNU archive. Let's recall
what you said above:

 > I did use the link to the sfnet [archive when answering questions,]
 > since I knew it was up to date while it became a common case the
 > the gnu part was possibly a few weeks thereafter.

Damn it. You were right! Technically, one example is enough so that I
cannot claim the opposite. Your archive WAS more up-to-date than mine
after all.


 > Such a thread usually meanders quite a time until the silent
 > readers of the mailinglist - and mostly partakers in the original
 > autoconf project - are fed up and make some noise themselves which
 > usually ends the discussion quickly thereafter.

Calling for help? :-)


 > Perhaps it did look to some as if the gnu site was not maintained
 > in the way that people might expect [...]

Which has probably nothing to do with the fact that you added fancy
layout to your pages in the time you saved by downloading the actual
contents from my site?


 > [...] and which they can get from the sfnet branch.

Another statement that we can actually verify. The complete list of
macros which are found on the SourceForge "branch" and _not_ in the
GNU archive is:

    ac_func_vsnprintf.m4
    ac_lib_readline.m4
    ac_prog_cc_warnings.m4
    ac_prog_fig2dev.m4

        All of these macros are duplicates. The author asked me to
        rename them to vl_<macro_name> to avoid conflicts with the
        "ac" prefix. I replaced them with the new versions, but your
        download scripts unfortunately didn't notice that.

    ag_check_allocated_ctime.m4
    ag_check_pathfind.m4
    ag_check_posix_regcomp.m4
    ag_check_posix_sysinfo.m4
    ag_check_strcspn.m4
    ag_check_strftime.m4
    ag_check_sys_siglist.m4
    ag_check_uname_syscall.m4

        These macros, which are all written by Bruce Korb ("bkorb"),
        where indeed never submitted to me.

    patch_libtool_on_darwin_zsh_overquoting.m4
    patch_libtool_sys_lib_search_path_spec.m4
    patch_libtool_to_add_host_cc.m4

        These were _removed_ from my site because these were _raw_
        macros without any sort of documentation or mark-up. Your
        script did not notice. (Let's play a little game: Can you
        guess who committed them to my CVS repository on 2001-08-25?)

To be fair: I omitted the macros that _you_ wrote yourself and which
mystically fail to make it into my submission queue. :-)

DAMN IT! I stand corrected again. Your site _does_ carry content that
mine does not have. 8 macros. Plus the duplicate and the junk ones.


 > It is therefore interesting to see THE SFNET BRANCH IS ACTUALLY
 > able to be seen as A COMPETITOR by you [...]
                                                  (Emphasis is mine.)

When I realized that I had actually "flamed" somebody on a public
mailing list, I was sort of disappointed with myself for having so
poor a self-control. But by now, this is starting to be real fun.
Please, by all means, go on!


 > Hopefully you can work out a way for you to finally come to terms
 > with me and the "Rest of the world" that you involve in the subject
 > of this thread.

Yeah ... I am a really disturbed person, you know. The sickest habits
I have (in reverse order of sickness):

 (3) Howling at the moon at night.

 (2) Not coming to terms with you and the rest of the world.

 (1) Writing my name _only_ on things I did myself.


Finally, one more comment to what you wrote right on top of your
e-mail:

 > Oh my... no phone call then.

What the heck should I call you for? Can you tell me that? Do you
assume that when we talked a bit, did some male bonding and stuff, the
facts would go away? Do you assume this perfectly crystal-clear
situation would change in any conceivable way during a phone call?

I will say it ONE LAST TIME: According to the GPL, under which I
licensed my work, you had every right to do what you did. I cannot
possibly hold grudges against you for using a right that I granted you
in the first place. There is no personal problem we have to discuss.
There is no issue to resolve. Everything is unbelievably alright.

If, upon reflection, you get the feeling that maybe -- just maybe --
you "sort of" did not win the Ethics Nobel Prize with the _way_ you
used the right that you have, then you should admit it and that's it.
There is no need to apologize for anything, there is no need to be
sorry for anything, there is no need to talk to me in private to
explain anything. Just, please!, stop making false claims about what
you really achieved and about what role I played in that.

Peter


P. S.: I won't even begin to think about how much work I could have
gotten done in the time I wrote those e-mails. :-(