Back to the topic of this package, I am observing a bit of a mixed / confused standard.
Many times you said if a package is not broken, it can stay. Then when my additional message stated that this is indeed broken, you said I didn't say how it is broken. But I did say what are the reasons behind it. And I'd like to point out that we are talking about an AUR package that has 0 votes or comments, and which had violated VCS package guidelines f8r68 years by not declaring its provides & conflicts, and only I gave feedback to maintainer about it a few months ago, for which in response they made the package worse than it was, and also pushed a defunct update. I do think that we also have to keep in mind the part of the AUR submission guidelines that say that packages here should be useful to more than a few people, and evaluate if this particular package is usable or not and in demand or not by fellow AUR users. Otherwise if you always favor the maintainers, even if they keep their unused and unusable pet packages on AUR for themselves only (or not even for themselves, in case of defunct PKGBUILDs), then the AUR will just accumulate more spammy mess as opposed to functioning builds that are well-attended.
