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 <scimmia@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:30:11 -0400 Manhong Dai via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> 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.