[aur-general] Reply to your request SGE

[Doug Newgard]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:38:02 -0400
Manhong Dai via aur-general <aur-general at archlinux.org> 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.