Alright, I'm thinking about what would be the best approach here.

It doesn't feel like it would cause too much harm to list the upstream PKGBUILD source (when applicable), but I still feel like there should be somewhat of a responsibility on top of the DUR maintainer.

As of now, I don't think I'd like to implement any new policy on the matter. I'd generally prefer to keep things fairly lax on the DUR, I'm just not sure what should be strictly enforced. If you (or anyone else) has any comments on it though, you can send a message over in the DUR support room.

Hi!

If it's feasible for you, could you remove the Arch Maintainer comment from your PKGBUILD?

I know it might make things easier to do so, but there really needs to not be a reliance on the PKGBUILDs from the AUR.

It's fine if that's where you're getting your PKGBUILD source from, but there shouldn't be much of a reference to maintainers there. It would be better to first look into the issues if/when they arise, and then redirect people to the AUR packager when deemed to be fit.

It also can make people less likely to want to report issue directly to you when you mention there's a maintainer that's above you. DUR maintainers should know how to fix PKGBUILDs themselves when issues arise, even if their sources (here being an AUR package) have unknown issues.

I know this wasn't listed in the DUR User Guidelines, but I'm still working on what exactly I need to put in it. I've tried to not add too much to it, but I'm still figuring out some stuff as more packages with more styles get added.

If it's not feasible for you to do, that's fine as well. It'll simply be a requirement for new packages that enter the DUR. If it is though, try to update accordingly when you can.

Thanks!