[aur-general] This Saturday I was deprived the maintainer status of AUR package SGE without reason

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Dear AUR administrator,

  Can you please change me back to the maintainer of the AUR package SGE?

  This saturday I got two emails. One is user "freswa" disowned this
package, and then 19 minutes later, another email said this package was
adopted. When I got the two emails, it was already too late to adopt the
package back. I did submit a request at the AUR web interface later, but
the request was denied without any explanation.

  I am an SGE administrator for University of Michigan, and I have been
maintaining the legacy SGE C code for many years to make it work with the
latest library changes and the newer version of GCC. I published my code
modification to AUR to help other Arch Linux user, and also help myself to
maintain our own SGE cluster, which runs on both CentOS and Arch Linux.

  I really don't know why I was deprived of the maintainer status because I
am a very responsive AUR maintainer. For example, I received some good
suggestions about my other packages, I did accept those suggestions and
modified my packages accordingly.

  The serious issue is I didn't receive any notification about the package
sge before the two email notifications. It is quite scary for me, and
should be scary for all AUR package maintainers.

  Is there anything I can do to get the maintainer status back?

Best,
Manhong

[aur-general] Reply to your request SGE

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Hi Freswa,

  Somebody pointed me to your reply in the list. I didn't even know that
the request in the AUR request system was sent to this email list, nor I
know such an email list existed.

  I agree that you think you already gave enough explanation from your
point of view. However, please think about it in my shoes, I I didn't even
know such an email list existed before I sent the last request through the
AUR website, and I just registered it about an hour ago to appeal. If you
think I spammed this request system, I am sorry for it. But from my point
of view, I have been extremely patient and following the ladder to appeal,
because I didn't get any email or any response on the AUR website, which
just says one word 'rejected'.

  I am also a very responsive package maintainer. You can check out my
other packages, as long as other people submitted a suggestion, I responded
the second day, and accepted their suggestions.

  In terms of the package SGE, I just searched my email again but didn't
find any email saying that the package is marked as out-of-date. It will be
hard to believe that a package that was submitted just four months ago is
already marked as out of date. It worked on a cluster of all our Arch Linux
nodes four months ago, and it is still working on the latest Arch Linux. It
worked on both new node installation and old node upgrade . I would never
have thought to check the AUR website to see if I am still a maintainer.
All I got was the two emails, one saying it was disowned, the other saying
it was adopted, and they are 19 minutes apart.

  Now I understand that each AUR package maintainer should join the email
list and keep watching it. Given this special circumstance, can I get the
maintainer status for the package SGE back?

Best,
Manhong

Re: [aur-general] Reply to your request SGE

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

The comments were sent to me indeed.  However, I didn't receive any email
notification about the package is marked as out of state.

The comment is just a simple 'bad taste' without any link or other advice.
The commenter is not a trusted user either and thus I won't simply accept
the pull request without going through the change one by one to be on the
safe side. I always compile and test the package during our cluster
upgrade, which happens once or twice per year. After all, the package works.

Now, let me repeat it again, I didn't receive any notification when the
package was marked as out of state.  I just searched my email again.

You can see I recently updated my other three packages per other people's
suggestions. I acted very quickly, if the comment is reasonable and not as
simple as a 'bad taste'. If other users are not satisfied with my package,
they can always fork and put a link under my package, instead of 'robbing'.

Now , all things considered, can I get the maintainer status back?


Best,
Manhong
Sent from phone

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 7:43 PM Doug Newgard  wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:26:07 -0400
> Manhong Dai via aur-general  wrote:
>
> > Hi Freswa,
> >
> >   Somebody pointed me to your reply in the list. I didn't even know that
> > the request in the AUR request system was sent to this email list, nor I
> > know such an email list existed.
> >
> >   I agree that you think you already gave enough explanation from your
> > point of view. However, please think about it in my shoes, I I didn't
> even
> > know such an email list existed before I sent the last request through
> the
> > AUR website, and I just registered it about an hour ago to appeal. If you
> > think I spammed this request system, I am sorry for it. But from my point
> > of view, I have been extremely patient and following the ladder to
> appeal,
> > because I didn't get any email or any response on the AUR website, which
> > just says one word 'rejected'.
> >
> >   I am also a very responsive package maintainer. You can check out my
> > other packages, as long as other people submitted a suggestion, I
> responded
> > the second day, and accepted their suggestions.
> >
> >   In terms of the package SGE, I just searched my email again but didn't
> > find any email saying that the package is marked as out-of-date. It will
> be
> > hard to believe that a package that was submitted just four months ago is
> > already marked as out of date. It worked on a cluster of all our Arch
> Linux
> > nodes four months ago, and it is still working on the latest Arch Linux.
> It
> > worked on both new node installation and old node upgrade . I would never
> > have thought to check the AUR website to see if I am still a maintainer.
> > All I got was the two emails, one saying it was disowned, the other
> saying
> > it was adopted, and they are 19 minutes apart.
> >
> >   Now I understand that each AUR package maintainer should join the email
> > list and keep watching it. Given this special circumstance, can I get the
> > maintainer status for the package SGE back?
> >
> > Best,
> > Manhong
>
> And the comment left on the AUR page, that you would have gotten a
> notification
> from? They were right, the PKGBUILD was in absolutely terrible shape.
> Nobody
> said it was out of date, just that it very, very badly needed fixing and
> you
> were ignoring it. You would have then gotten notifications on Sept 19th
> when it
> was first requested that it be orphaned, on Oct 6th when a second request
> the
> it be orphaned was filed, and on Oct 10th when it was requested for a 3rd
> time
> that it be orphaned.
>
> Note that none of those notifications require you to be subscribed to any
> mailing list. They were sent directly to you.
>
> With the state of the PKGBUILD and no response, removing the maintainer
> was the
> right thing to do, without question.
>

Re: [aur-general] Reply to your request SGE

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Thanks a lot for your reply! I commented on the package hoping the new
maintainer can return the maintainer  to me.

But I am willing to answer your question.

A pull request needs a lot of effort to check. The pull request changed a
lot of files and it is not that easy to see if the change is not malicious.
That being said, now do you understand that why I would trust a 'trusted
user' more? After all, 'trusted user' was named so for a reason, right?

If changing package status to 'out of state ' doesn't send any
notification, it is SCARY. Not everybody can  check out the aur email list
everyday and we all work on there packages for free.  Why it is scary? What
if a malicious user submit a ticket like this and the become the maintainer
for a package that is not popular but could access sensitive data, like SGE?

Think about it, the disowning already sends notification, why doesn't the
warning 'out of state' send the email?

On another note, maybe the AUR package should be named like github does.
Adding the user name to the path will save such headache for both you and
me..


Best,
Manhong
Sent from phone

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 8:14 PM Doug Newgard  wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:01:45 -0400
> Manhong Dai via aur-general  wrote:
>
> > The comments were sent to me indeed.  However, I didn't receive any email
> > notification about the package is marked as out of state.
>
> And what in the world does "out of state" even mean? Of course there's no
> notification for it, it's not a thing.
>
> >
> > The comment is just a simple 'bad taste' without any link or other
> advice.
> > The commenter is not a trusted user either and thus I won't simply accept
> > the pull request without going through the change one by one to be on the
> > safe side. I always compile and test the package during our cluster
> > upgrade, which happens once or twice per year. After all, the package
> works.
>
> Without any link or other advice, but it had a pull request. You're
> contradicting yourself here.
>
> You think you can ignore people just because they're not a TU? Think again.
>
> Saying the package works is not a defense. You couldn't even get something
> as
> simple as the pkgver right.
>
> >
> > Now, let me repeat it again, I didn't receive any notification when the
> > package was marked as out of state.  I just searched my email again.
>
> And again, "out of state" is not a thing.
>
> >
> > You can see I recently updated my other three packages per other people's
> > suggestions. I acted very quickly, if the comment is reasonable and not
> as
> > simple as a 'bad taste'. If other users are not satisfied with my
> package,
> > they can always fork and put a link under my package, instead of
> 'robbing'.
> >
> > Now , all things considered, can I get the maintainer status back?
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Manhong
> > Sent from phone
> 
>
> And stop top posting.
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Top_posting
>

Re: [aur-general] Reply to your request SGE

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

I actually did read your email. You said I cannot get a simple thing such
as pkgver right.

Let me explain to you, from your point of view, you certainly want to have
some rule or guideline to make all the package  has the same standard. That
is understandable and it is what make Arch Linux popular. I would love to
be compliant with the rule whenever I have the resource, and I did with all
other my AUR packages.

>From my point of view, a pkgver is not the point here. I do need to make my
modified SGE package can be compiled with the latest SSL, GCC, other Linux
contribution, and can be used to upgrade an old node without losing
configuration. No matter how bad a pkgver is defined, an Arch Linux with a
working SGE is away better, right?

The problem is actually not on my side. Your request system has my email
address, I sent you a request after the package was adopted, some
bystanders figured  out I didn't get any reply and sent your reply to me,
That is when I knew that the request is also in the mail list, and such
email list exists..

Because you are attacking my capability, and I believe everybody who can
read will know your claim is actually baseless, I did ignore your personal
attack in my previous email.

Yes, I can say sorry about ignoring hat.


Best,
Manhong
Sent from phone

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:11 PM Doug Newgard  wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:30:11 -0400
> Manhong Dai via aur-general  wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for your reply! I commented on the package hoping the new
> > maintainer can return the maintainer  to me.
> >
> > But I am willing to answer your question.
> >
> > A pull request needs a lot of effort to check. The pull request changed a
> > lot of files and it is not that easy to see if the change is not
> malicious.
> > That being said, now do you understand that why I would trust a 'trusted
> > user' more? After all, 'trusted user' was named so for a reason, right?
> >
> > If changing package status to 'out of state ' doesn't send any
> > notification, it is SCARY. Not everybody can  check out the aur email
> list
> > everyday and we all work on there packages for free.  Why it is scary?
> What
> > if a malicious user submit a ticket like this and the become the
> maintainer
> > for a package that is not popular but could access sensitive data, like
> SGE?
> >
> > Think about it, the disowning already sends notification, why doesn't the
> > warning 'out of state' send the email?
> >
> > On another note, maybe the AUR package should be named like github does.
> > Adding the user name to the path will save such headache for both you and
> > me..
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Manhong
> > Sent from phone
>
> You didn't read a single word I wrote. Don't bother replying if you can't
> read.
>

Re: [aur-general] Reply to your request SGE

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

You are right that I don't know what 'out of state' or 'out of date' or
'out of whatever' is. All I know is that I suddenly lost the ownership and
will have to change my cluster maintenance code tomorrow.

In terms of pkgver or pkgbuild.  Now you said nobody cares about pigver,
guess who said this sentence below?
'You couldn't even get something as simple as the pkgver right'

  It turned out I can read and actually remember


Best,
Manhong
Sent from phone

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:46 PM Doug Newgard  wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:38:02 -0400
> Manhong Dai via aur-general  wrote:
>
> > I actually did read your email. You said I cannot get a simple thing such
> > as pkgver right.
> >
> > Let me explain to you, from your point of view, you certainly want to
> have
> > some rule or guideline to make all the package  has the same standard.
> That
> > is understandable and it is what make Arch Linux popular. I would love to
> > be compliant with the rule whenever I have the resource, and I did with
> all
> > other my AUR packages.
> >
> > From my point of view, a pkgver is not the point here. I do need to make
> my
> > modified SGE package can be compiled with the latest SSL, GCC, other
> Linux
> > contribution, and can be used to upgrade an old node without losing
> > configuration. No matter how bad a pkgver is defined, an Arch Linux with
> a
> > working SGE is away better, right?
> >
> > The problem is actually not on my side. Your request system has my email
> > address, I sent you a request after the package was adopted, some
> > bystanders figured  out I didn't get any reply and sent your reply to me,
> > That is when I knew that the request is also in the mail list, and such
> > email list exists..
> >
> > Because you are attacking my capability, and I believe everybody who can
> > read will know your claim is actually baseless, I did ignore your
> personal
> > attack in my previous email.
> >
> > Yes, I can say sorry about ignoring hat.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Manhong
> > Sent from phone
> >
>
> So you read it and you're STILL top posting in violation of the rules. And
> making up something called "out of state" which doesn't exist. And claiming
> that you have to be on a mailing list when it's been explained, multiple
> times,
> that you don't. You claim you're reading, now try understanding.
>
> Nobody cares what your point of view is on pkgver. It's obvious to pretty
> much
> anyone that's ever written, or even read, a PKGBUILD.
>

Re: [aur-general] aur-general Digest, Vol 192, Issue 4

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Hi Alexis,

Thanks a lot for the contructive feedback!

I didn't receive your email actually! I found your reply in
the digest.

It might be our UMich.edu Gmail or AUR-general email server
right now. But this sge drama was not caused by the email issue. It is
caused by that I have an account in AUR, but didn't register the AUR-
general, and I didn't even know it exists until a few days ago.

I agree that "It seems that in the last times you didn't take
enough care of the sge package". The thing is My PKGBUILD just works
without any glitch on dozens of SGE nodes since day one. It includes
those C code modification I did in the past decade to make it work with
CentOS, Debian and the latest GCC/SSL in current Arch Linux. Further, I
don't have much free time to maintain a PKGBUILD file or read the AUR
wiki, just like many other AUR package maintainers. 

Thanks a lot for the suggestion though, I will host my C code
modification with some upcoming accumulated improvement on github, as
github won't make me lose the package in a period of just two months
ending with two 19-minute apart email notifications.

Here is my suggestions to AUR though.

1, It seems that many PKGBUILD issues can be solved by a script. For
example, the PKGVER mistake that the current maintainer of SGE package
made and user a821 commented "The pkgver used to be 20200527 but now is
8.1.9. However 20200527 > 8.1.9 so epoch=1 might be
required." https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sge/

Although I won't believe one who 'couldn't even get something as simple
as the pkgver right' cannot make a good AUR package because 'good' is
very subjective and definitely not limited to a PKGBUILD file, AUR
should have a script running from time to time to check such simple
mistakes and notify the maintainer. I actually believe that you already
have such thing because some comments on my other AUR packages are very
professional and like robot :). Or a command to check some common
mistakes in a  PKGBUILD file?


2, Force an AUR package maintainer to join AUR-general, or send every
notification to the package maintainer, as I never received any email
notification about orphaning SGE.

Thanks your very much for your constructive feedback again!

Best,
Manhong

On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 12:00 +, aur-general-requ...@archlinux.org
wrote:
> Send aur-general mailing list submissions to
> aur-general@archlinux.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/aur-general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> aur-general-requ...@archlinux.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> aur-general-ow...@archlinux.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of aur-general digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Reply to your request SGE (Manhong Dai)
>    2. Re: Reply to your request SGE (Doug Newgard)
>    3. Re: Reply to your request SGE (Alexis BRENON)
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> -
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:57:52 -0400
> From: Manhong Dai 
> To: Doug Newgard 
> Cc: Manhong Dai via aur-general 
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Reply to your request SGE
> Message-ID:
>  >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> You are right that I don't know what 'out of state' or 'out of date'
> or
> 'out of whatever' is. All I know is that I suddenly lost the
> ownership and
> will have to change my cluster maintenance code tomorrow.
> 
> In terms of pkgver or pkgbuild.  Now you said nobody cares about
> pigver,
> guess who said this sentence below?
> 'You couldn't even get something as simple as the pkgver right'
> 
>   It turned out I can read and actually remember
> 
> 
> Best,
> Manhong
> Sent from phone
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:46 PM Doug Newgard 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:38:02 -0400
> > Manhong Dai via aur-general  wrote:
> > 
> > > I actually did read your email. You said I cannot get a simple
> > > thing such
> > > as pkgver right.
> > > 
> > > Let me explain to you, from your point of view, you certainly
> > > want to
> > have
> > > some rule or guideline to make all the package  has the same
> > > standard.
> > That
> > > is understandable and it is what make Arch Linux popular. I would
> > > love to
> > > be compliant with the rule whenever I have the 

[aur-general] SGE

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Hi Bruno,

Thanks a lot for confirming that I didn't receive Orphaning
email! 

I did receive the comment. I actually checked the pull request
a little, but decided not to reply because I didn't want to be
negative. I totally believe the current maintainer has a better format
of PKGBUILD (well, except his pkgver mistake). Now let me comment a few
things on SGE.

In the SGE package comment.

1, The current maintainer blamed me "连pkgver都填错这个真的是有点不可容忍了". Google
translation: "It’s really intolerable that even pkgver was filled in
wrong." 

Now it turned out that the current maintainer made the mistake.

2, He also said "通过.install在post install阶段装了一大堆包管理器没有接管的文件", Google
translation "A lot of files that the package manager did not take over
were installed in the post install stage through .install".

  This could be a disaster if somebody want to upgrade SGE by uninstall
and re-install. SGE has been a very special software because it needs
some post installation to let user specify a lot of host/jobs/queue
configuration. Thus all files are put under /opt/sge for the legacy
reason.


Best,
Manhong




On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 18:58 +0400, Archange wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le 14/10/2020 à 18:47, Manhong Dai via aur-general a écrit :
> > 2, Force an AUR package maintainer to join AUR-general, or send
> > every
> > notification to the package maintainer, as I never received any
> > email
> > notification about orphaning SGE.
> 
> I’m not commenting on everything else here, but regarding this point:
> subscription to aur-general is not required, and every notifications
> are
> sent to the package maintainer… or at least should be, because a bug
> introduced some months ago broke that (see
> https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/aurweb/-/merge_requests/6).
> 
> So indeed you did not receive the Orphaning requests notifications.
> But
> you did receive comments on the AUR page, and you did receive the
> emails
> to which you responded and that told you to *stop top-posting*.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruno/Archange

Re: [aur-general] SGE

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Hi Sauyon,

Thank you! I learned!

Best,
Manhong

Re: [aur-general] aur-general Digest, Vol 192, Issue 5

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 21:03:26 +0200
> From: alad 
> To: aur-general@archlinux.org
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] SGE
> Message-ID: <683dd11c-f5f1-f0a6-8f97-acde1c8e8...@archlinux.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 14/10/2020 17:16, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
> > Hi Bruno,
> 
> Top-posting, do you know what it means?
> 
> Do not do this: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting
> 
> But do this: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style or 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Bottom-posting
> 
> Again 
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Top_posting
> 
> Don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you keep doing this even
> after being asked not to, repeatedly.

Appreciate it, Alad! I learned!

Best,
Manhong

[aur-general] SGE Orphaning

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Dear Trust User,

I submitted an Orphaning request in both comment area and
ticket system. Feel free to let me know if there is anything I need to
do to follow up.

My email address is da...@umich.edu , just in case I missed
any emails.

Best,
Manhong

Re: [aur-general] SGE Orphaning

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 11:17 -0700, Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 2020-10-19 12:59, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
> > Dear Trust User,
> > 
> > I submitted an Orphaning request in both comment area and
> > ticket system. Feel free to let me know if there is anything I need
> > to
> > do to follow up.
> > 
> > My email address is da...@umich.edu , just in case I missed
> > any emails.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Manhong
> 
> It's been made clear that you're not willing to listen to TUs and
> would 
> rather engage in what appears to be bordering on harassment with the
> new 
> maintainer. If you had demonstrated a clear attempt to actually 
> understand the responses to your mails in this list then there might 
> have been recourse. As it stands, you're merely digging your own
> grave.

I am more than willing to listen to TU, as well as any other users.

As what you said is all opinion, it is hard for me to reply. But let me
try.

If you referring to that I top-posted before, I already apologized.
Also a fun fact, I have been top-posting in my whole life, and I never
saw a non-top-posting email in the past two decades in USA. Further it
was very hard to read non-top-post emails on phone, at least for me for
now. Or if you think I am harassing the new maintainer, please show me
what words are harassment, I am happy to apologize and modify it. At
least I didn't call anybody "zero knowledge", or "know nothing", etc,
did I?

Please shed some light on  what I or any other AUR maintainers who
didn't register AUR-general should do in this case, before the package
was taken over.

If it is I should always reply comment, that's a very high bar, at
least for me, especially if I see a simple patch file is split into
many small files.

Best,
Manhong

> If the new maintainer wants your help, he'll add you as a co-
> maintainer. 
> If they do not, then leave them be and put your PKGBUILD elsewhere.

Re: [aur-general] SGE Orphaning

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 20:41 +0200, Iyán Méndez Veiga wrote:
> On Monday, 19 October 2020 20:32:23 CEST Manhong Dai via aur-general
> wrote:
> > I am more than willing to listen to TU, as well as any other users.
> 
> Okay, let's see if that's true and you keep learning. Can you please
> do me 
> (all of us?) a favour and stop spamming in this email list. And yes,
> I find 
> your actitute way offensive. Not only here but also with your
> comments in AUR.
> 
> As you have been told by the SGE (Son of Grid Engine) maintainer, you
> are more 
> than welcome to submit a new sge-daimh or some-grid-engine package to
> AUR with 
> all your modifications/patches from SGE.

I don't think this is spamming. Because I mentioned many facts and
reasons in my last comment at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sge/
But here is some points in case you don't want to read it.

1, My code modification's copyright is not disclaimed, as all my works
belong to University of Michigan.

2, If an AUR maintainer is not required to join this list, and an AUR
web system's bug caused the email problem, I did nothing wrong before
my top-posting. Yes, I am annoying, but I was as innocent as a newborn.
(Well, before my top-posting)

3, Also, here is git diff of the bug fix that the current maintainer
just submitted. He knew 'makepkg' fails, but he publish the file
anyway, and now he modified it because of my Orphaning request.

-   cd "${pkgname}-${pkgver}/source"
+   "cd ${srcdir}/${pkgname}-${pkgver}/source"

If you feel I am spamming, I am so sorry for your feeling. But I would
think this is helpful for me, the new maintainer and all other AUR
maintainers.


Best,
Manhong


> 
> Best regards,
> Iyán
> 

Re: [aur-general] SGE Orphaning

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 4:05 PM Amin Vakil via aur-general <
aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> I remember you have said that you use this package on your servers in
> university, so why don't you just create a new package with any
> modifications you need in PKGBUILD and even make it specified for your
> needs if you want to and use it for yourself?


> What are you trying to accomplish with being called "maintainer" of sge
> package?
>
> You can post your PKGBUILD on github/gitlab or any other git service
> online to track the modifications, being able to download it from
> anywhere, ask for other people's opinion, etc.
>

Thanks a lot for your suggestions! As I mentioned in my last comment of the
package, I already published my work on github. https://github.com/daimh/sge

I am also not trying to be a maintainer of the package. If you read my last
comment, you can see I am actually fine as long as my name and my patch's
copyright is acknowledged in a clear way. Right now, it looks like the
current maintainer made those code modification.

Actually you raised a very good question. The thing is the current
maintainer should answer it. Why does the current maintainer want to become
the maintainer while he knows every AUR rule and can easily clone one? And
why  don't a TU ask the new maintainer this question?

Now I believe it is well known that I was very innocent as I didn't receive
any notification and I sent out an email immediately after the package was
adopted; It is clear that I am capable enough to add CMake support, make
SGE run on four Major Linux distributions and wont make any simple shell
script error; And more importantly, I am very responsible for my work as
all my published work are tested.

It is really up to AUR to see how they handle this mistake caused by their
bug.

I am fine with whatever decision AUR made. However this is a good case for
any new AUR package maintainer in future. After all, unlike most of the
guys in this email list, it is not surprising that I have been sleeping in
hospital for just two months. At my age, anything could happen. :)


Best,
Manhong

Re: [aur-general] SGE Orphaning

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 4:34 PM Manhong Dai  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 4:05 PM Amin Vakil via aur-general <
> aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>> I remember you have said that you use this package on your servers in
>> university, so why don't you just create a new package with any
>> modifications you need in PKGBUILD and even make it specified for your
>> needs if you want to and use it for yourself?
>
>
>> What are you trying to accomplish with being called "maintainer" of sge
>> package?
>>
>> You can post your PKGBUILD on github/gitlab or any other git service
>> online to track the modifications, being able to download it from
>> anywhere, ask for other people's opinion, etc.
>>
>
> Thanks a lot for your suggestions! As I mentioned in my last comment of
> the package, I already published my work on github.
> https://github.com/daimh/sge
>
> I am also not trying to be a maintainer of the package. If you read my
> last comment, you can see I am actually fine as long as my name and my
> patch's copyright is acknowledged in a clear way. Right now, it looks like
> the current maintainer made those code modification.
>
> Actually you raised a very good question. The thing is the current
> maintainer should answer it. Why does the current maintainer want to become
> the maintainer while he knows every AUR rule and can easily clone one? And
> why  don't a TU ask the new maintainer this question?
>
> Now I believe it is well known that I was very innocent as I didn't
> receive any notification and I sent out an email immediately after the
> package was adopted; It is clear that I am capable enough to add CMake
> support, make SGE run on four Major Linux distributions and wont make any
> simple shell script error; And more importantly, I am very responsible for
> my work as all my published work are tested.
>
> It is really up to AUR to see how they handle this mistake caused by their
> bug.
>
> I am fine with whatever decision AUR made. However this is a good case for
> any new AUR package maintainer in future. After all, unlike most of the
> guys in this email list, it is not surprising that I have been sleeping in
> hospital for just two months. At my age, anything could happen. :)
>
>
> Best,
> Manhong
>
>
I just thought it again, and here is my proposal.

The current maintainer keeps the package, but he needs to use my one single
patch file and add the two lines at the bottom of this email to the top of
the patch file. I think I am very reasonable. Plus this one patch file
benefits all Linux distribution administrators.

I am so sorry for 'spamming' other innocent users in this list. But please
understand me as the first reply of current maintainer is Chinese..


Best,
Manhong


Developed by Manhong Dai 

Copyright © 2020 University of Michigan. License GPLv3+
: GNU GPL version 3 or later

>

Re: [aur-general] SGE Orphaning

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Manhong Dai  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 4:34 PM Manhong Dai  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 4:05 PM Amin Vakil via aur-general <
>> aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I remember you have said that you use this package on your servers in
>>> university, so why don't you just create a new package with any
>>> modifications you need in PKGBUILD and even make it specified for your
>>> needs if you want to and use it for yourself?
>>
>>
>>> What are you trying to accomplish with being called "maintainer" of sge
>>> package?
>>>
>>> You can post your PKGBUILD on github/gitlab or any other git service
>>> online to track the modifications, being able to download it from
>>> anywhere, ask for other people's opinion, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your suggestions! As I mentioned in my last comment of
>> the package, I already published my work on github.
>> https://github.com/daimh/sge
>>
>> I am also not trying to be a maintainer of the package. If you read my
>> last comment, you can see I am actually fine as long as my name and my
>> patch's copyright is acknowledged in a clear way. Right now, it looks like
>> the current maintainer made those code modification.
>>
>> Actually you raised a very good question. The thing is the current
>> maintainer should answer it. Why does the current maintainer want to become
>> the maintainer while he knows every AUR rule and can easily clone one? And
>> why  don't a TU ask the new maintainer this question?
>>
>> Now I believe it is well known that I was very innocent as I didn't
>> receive any notification and I sent out an email immediately after the
>> package was adopted; It is clear that I am capable enough to add CMake
>> support, make SGE run on four Major Linux distributions and wont make any
>> simple shell script error; And more importantly, I am very responsible for
>> my work as all my published work are tested.
>>
>> It is really up to AUR to see how they handle this mistake caused by
>> their bug.
>>
>> I am fine with whatever decision AUR made. However this is a good case
>> for any new AUR package maintainer in future. After all, unlike most of the
>> guys in this email list, it is not surprising that I have been sleeping in
>> hospital for just two months. At my age, anything could happen. :)
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Manhong
>>
>>
> I just thought it again, and here is my proposal.
>
> The current maintainer keeps the package, but he needs to use my one
> single patch file and add the two lines at the bottom of this email to the
> top of the patch file. I think I am very reasonable. Plus this one patch
> file benefits all Linux distribution administrators.
>
> I am so sorry for 'spamming' other innocent users in this list. But please
> understand me as the first reply of current maintainer is Chinese..
>
>
> Best,
> Manhong
>
>
> Developed by Manhong Dai 
>
> Copyright © 2020 University of Michigan. License GPLv3+
> : GNU GPL version 3 or later
>

Another fun fact just for the record.

The latest bug that the current maintainer just fixed is below. It is as
simple as a wrong location of the double quote, but it will fail the whole
makepkg.
<<<
package() {
"cd ${pkgname}-${pkgver}/source"
>>>
this double quote bug exists in the three commits.
2bc33b5, OCT 18, 02:05
a7bb16b, Oct 13, 20:29
9ee5075, Oct 13 15:01

If today Alad didn't trigger me to test the package again because I
accidentally removed a comment this weekend, I don't know how long this bug
will persist. After all, the current maintainer said "I know that there is
an error in package() when building in clean chroot. I'll fixed that a few
days later".

Best,
Manhong

[aur-general] SGE has copyright violation

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM  wrote:

> Request #21898 has been rejected by Foxboron [1]:
>
> Not interested. The sge package is not going to point at your fork.
>
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Foxboron/


Thanks a lot for the reply! But I never ask the current maintainer to point
to my fork. I guess those markdown syntax messed it up.

This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The
current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file without
mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's copyright.
Further, he split it into many patch files, now those modifications look to
be his contribution as nobody will dig into git history, not to mention
patching with many files is the worst way to promote a software.

I believe I am the first one in the world who made SGE work under the
latest SSL and GLIBC. I created the single source code patch file, and
initially put it on AUR sge.

I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he can
keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the copyright
and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He
rejected me.

Now here are all the facts, could you please reconsider it again?

1,  I am the original author of the SGE source code patch file, I put my
source code patch file on AUR sge.
2. I didn't receive any email notification before the package was taken
over, This is confirmed by a TU
3, I didn't join AUR-general before the package was taken over, and the
same TU confirmed that this is not required.
4, I tried to settle with the current maintainer, and asked him to respect
Copyright and original author, he rejected me.
5, The current maintainer's PKGBUILD doesn't work, and he 'git push' three
times anyway, while knowing it fails. It took him 7 days to fix a 'cd'
error.

Everything above are true facts, and it can be verified in court, and I am
willing to take any penalty if they are not fact.

Now, the simple question is, can any original work put on AUR be taken away
like this?

Best,
Manhong

Re: [aur-general] SGE has copyright violation

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 9:28 AM Ben Lönnqvist via aur-general <
aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 24/10/2020 14.36, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
> > This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The
> > current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file
> without
> > mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's
> copyright.
> >
> > I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he
> can
> > keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the
> copyright
> > and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He
> > rejected me.
>
> Sounds to me that what you should do is create a deletion request, but I
> could be wrong though.
>
> - Ben aka silentnoodle
>

That is true! I already submitted a delete request right after submitting
the email.

>
>

[aur-general] Fwd: [PRQ#21898] Orphan Request for sge Rejected

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

-- Forwarded message -
From: Manhong Dai 
Date: Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [PRQ#21898] Orphan Request for sge Rejected
To: 
Cc: , 


On Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 7:33 AM Manhong Dai  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM  wrote:
>
>> Request #21898 has been rejected by Foxboron [1]:
>>
>> Not interested. The sge package is not going to point at your fork.
>>
>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Foxboron/
>
>
> Thanks a lot for the reply! But I never ask the current maintainer to
> point to my fork. I guess those markdown syntax messed it up.
>
> This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The
> current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file without
> mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's copyright.
> Further, he split it into many patch files, now those modifications look to
> be his contribution as nobody will dig into git history, not to mention
> patching with many files is the worst way to promote a software.
>
> I believe I am the first one in the world who made SGE work under the
> latest SSL and GLIBC. I created the single source code patch file, and
> initially put it on AUR sge.
>
> I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he can
> keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the copyright
> and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He
> rejected me.
>
> Now here are all the facts, could you please reconsider it again?
>
> 1,  I am the original author of the SGE source code patch file, I put my
> source code patch file on AUR sge.
> 2. I didn't receive any email notification before the package was taken
> over, This is confirmed by a TU
> 3, I didn't join AUR-general before the package was taken over, and the
> same TU confirmed that this is not required.
> 4, I tried to settle with the current maintainer, and asked him to respect
> Copyright and original author, he rejected me.
> 5, The current maintainer's PKGBUILD doesn't work, and he 'git push' three
> times anyway, while knowing it fails. It took him 7 days to fix a 'cd'
> error.
>
> Everything above are true facts, and it can be verified in court, and I am
> willing to take any penalty if they are not fact.
>
> Now, the simple question is, can any original work put on AUR be taken
> away like this?
>
> Best,
> Manhong
>
>
Request #22028 has been rejected by Foxboron [1]:

Patches has been removed.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Foxboron/

Thanks! @Foxboron. it is all good as long as my original work is not
involved now.

As programmers, I always respect and acknowledge other people's work and
expect the same from others.

Truly appreciate those who helped me, including a few users who forwarded
me the emails on this list. Or I probably will never know such an email
list exists. So sorry I cannot mention your names as I just got 1000+ mail
list subscription confirmation in one day.

I also want to say sorry to those who feel these are spams. The thing is
this kind of issues will happen from time to time as AUR doesn't associate
a project with user name. I hope a little waste of your time will set a
good  AUR standard from now on.

This is a good lesson for me too, as I will put copyright/license on all my
work, no matter it is MIT, GPL or BSD, and should have published my work
originally on github.

SGE will be continued on my github project as I will make it more Linux
friendly and totally ditch some unnecessary features, such as Windows
support, whenever I find nothing better to do. As I added cmake compiling
support recently, followup development will be much easier.

Have a good day! Feel free to send me email directly at da...@umich.edu.


Best,
Manhong

PS, If someone wants to subscribe me on another 1000+ email lists again,
please find some truly interesting ones. My hobbies are hunting, fishing
and racing. Thanks in advance!



Sorry I just found I sent to a wrong list... again

Hopefully this is the last email I sent to aur-general.

[aur-general] Sge delete request

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

Request #22025 has been rejected by Foxboron [1]:

PKGBUILDs are standard enough to not constitute original work.

Please stop abusing the AUR.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Foxboron/

I am not talking about the PKGBUILD. I even asked the current maintainer to
remove my name from the contributor in that file.


The copyright violation is my SGE source code patch file. That is my
original work.

Best,
Manhong
Sent from phone