> There is indeed a lack of Pull Requests, which would make it vastly > easier to contribute. It would be interesting if someone can figure out > how easy it is to implement that into the AUR.
Typically one would just make a patch file and link to it in a comment. Even if the owner does not apply it themselves others can choose to. > 4. upstream software author is difficult to directly contribute to the AUR > packaging contribution. For a great number of upstream software author, they > are willing to participate in downstream redistribution process. Especially > for those young software. But the current AUR workflow block their way to > contribute on downstream stuff. An upstream maintainer can just ask to be a co-maintainer of the downstream AUR package. If a maintainer does not respond, that is already a reason to orphan the package. Thus the only problematic situation I could think of is where a maintainer does communicate but is not willing to fix an issue with their package, which I have never seen myself. I think it's good not to overcomplicate the system. I don't think the same software should be provided by multiple PKGBUILDs or maintainers. All software should just be packaged correctly on the AUR.
