Package Details: sge 1:8.1.9-6

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: sge
Description: The Son of Grid Engine is a community project to continue Sun's old gridengine.
Upstream URL:
Licenses: custom
Submitter: daimh
Maintainer: petronny
Last Packager: petronny
Votes: 2
Popularity: 0.008218
First Submitted: 2019-05-17 16:50
Last Updated: 2020-11-20 08:53

Pinned Comments

petronny commented on 2020-10-24 11:54

Prebuilt binary of this package can be found in the arch4edu repository.

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Next › Last »

iyanmv commented on 2020-10-24 20:27

My +1 vote just goes to show my respect for @petronny's infinite patience. Oh my god...

daimh commented on 2020-10-24 18:29

Just for the record.

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.


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.


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

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!

Alad commented on 2020-10-24 18:12

Or if you would love to help, please restore all removed comments.

In case it wasn't already clear (petronny made the point before) the comments are visible by clicking the "next" or "previous" buttons right next to the "Latest Comments" field - except for those removed by their authors.

Anyway the TU team rejected both your deletion and orphan requests. Let's leave it to rest at that.

petronny commented on 2020-10-24 11:54

Prebuilt binary of this package can be found in the arch4edu repository.

daimh commented on 2020-10-23 03:12

Thanks a lot for your reply.

Then I will keep my orphaning request. let us see what AUR says.

Have a good day! It was fun and refreshing to take to you.

petronny commented on 2020-10-23 03:09

I will not use that file, since I don’t think organizing patches in one big file is a good choice.

Also, organizing patches by the file patched is not a good choice. But I think now it’s slightly better than the one big file strategy.

I will try to merge them to like gcc7.patch, gcc8.patch and gcc9.patch in the future.

daimh commented on 2020-10-23 03:02

Thanks for reminding me that. Lol

Will you use the patch file I created for you? It doesn't need any special handling and the same patch command works.

If you will, I will write an email to AUR-general to withdraw the orphaning request.

petronny commented on 2020-10-23 02:58

The patch file I created for you is already changed to SISSL.

To be clear, for SGE.

And great, this is much clear to discuss what we can and cannot do.

Also, I think you have 120 days to fix your GitHub repository since now it’s violating SISSL.

daimh commented on 2020-10-23 02:46

The patch file I created for you is already changed to SISSL.

petronny commented on 2020-10-23 02:44

Again, how I licence my code patch file over Liverpool is between Liverpool and Umich. Under any circumstances, you are not plaintiff.

Your patch is clearly a Modification to the SGE, which should obey SISSL unless SISSL allow you to use other license.