Arch Linux User Repository

The original source link is broken. But luckily I've saved a mirror on github.

I'm using the mirror link for now. Please remind me if the original link is available again.

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

Below is quoted from wiki. If my patch was SISSL licence, you have 120 days to comply with my copyright request...

So do you want me to change it to the sun licence?

You have no right to use my code modification because the patch author and copyright of university of Michigan is not mentioned.

Don't steal other people's original work, please.

"However, the SISSL is unique among OSI-approved licenses in requiring that "The Modifications which You create must comply with all requirements set out by the Standards body in effect one hundred twenty (120) days before You ship the Contributor Version."

The source of SGE is distributed with SISSL. I haven't read the license completely, but I guess:

1. The source of the SGE should keep using SISSL. Your github repository changes it to GPLv3 and this may violate the license.
2. Your patch or in term, Modifications, may also can only be licensed to SISSL.

Please read SISSL and check if you have to right to use a new license.

For now I'm assuming your patch is licensed to SISSL. If so I think I'm not violating or "stealing" anything.

It is sad to see that open source license is not respected, university of Michigan copyright is infringed and my creative work is stolen.

Thanks a lot for your reply though!

using my original patch file

Using your one big patch file will never happen.

add the Author and Copyright of University of Michigan to its top

That's not needed. Your initial commit has clearly shown that this file is added by you.

:-) Thanks! I love being called young!

Just for the record, are you willing to take my suggestion of using my original patch file and add the Author and Copyright of University of Michigan to its top?

If you are willing, I will withdraw my Orphaning request, this package is all yours.

BTW, please remove my name from your PKGBUILD file.

I can't believe that a man over 30 is such so childish.

I never spam your email. I'm writting 2 conference papers for ICASSP 2021 in the last 2 weeks. How could I have time to spam your email when I even hardly get time to sleep?

Don't post these BS anymore.

I received 10+ email list subscription from IP address 194.94.214.73 in the past hour. I don't know who did it, but I don't have any conflict with anyone else.

Don't post your suspects before you get any proof. Can't you learn anything from the comments which only you think they were deleted?

It took the current maintainer 7 days to fix the mistake.

There is no rule about the limit for the maintainer to fix anything. But commonly, it should be 2 weeks. Even 2 weeks are passed, one should comment about how to fix it before file a request.

Quoting from a TU, "people have lives".

I did not do anything wrong until this package was taken over.

According to your comment, "On Aug 10, current maintainer commented and asked me to pull his work. I checked it but didn't reply for not wanting being negative. ",
writting such a bad PKGBUILD, replying nothing to my kind patch and applying nothing from the patch for 2 months are what you've done wrong.

I've show you how to fix:

1. the pkgver
2. the upstream URL
3. the license
4. the hard-coded pkgver in the source file url
5. patching files in build() rather than prepare()
6. running installer in post_install() rather than package()
7. the position of the install= line

These are almost everything in the PKGBUILD. Your "negative"s to all of these fixes will lead to 2 assumptions:

1. You didn't read these fixes for 2 months. "I checked it but didn't reply" is a lie.
2. You don't know about what a proper PKGBUILD should be. In other words, you don't know how to maintain a package for archlinux.

For either of these assumptions, you are not suitable for maintaining this package.

More importantly, he released the failed packages three times while he knows it fails or didn't test it at all.

More importantly, I fixed the typo on time and make this package well-packaged.
And actually, I doesn't "release" the last 2 commits because I doesn't update .SRCINFO on purpose. The pkgvers are still same. I didn't want to "release" the 1st one neither, however I have to add epoch to fix the wrong pkgver written by you.

Just for the record.

1. In AUR-general, I proposed to the current maintainer to use my one single patch file with two lines of author and copyright at the top. If this is fine with him, I will withdraw my Orphaning request, although I have every reason， and I did not do anything wrong until this package was taken over. The detailed history is my previous comment.

2. It took the current maintainer 7 days to fix the mistake below. More importantly, he released the failed packages three times while he knows it fails or didn't test it at all.

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

This mistake exists in the three commits.

2bc33b5, OCT 18, 02:05

a7bb16b, Oct 13, 20:29

9ee5075, Oct 13 15:01

on Oct 17, 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".

3, I received 10+ email list subscription from IP address 194.94.214.73 in the past hour. I don't know who did it, but I don't have any conflict with anyone else. Well, after I turned 30 years old. :-)

4, I am not certain if the current maintainer deleted any comment, as the page refreshing often gives me different result. So I took back the last point in my previous email, while everything else is true.