That's all good, as long as I'm able to keep using the packages I should be fine.
Could I ask why those requests were even sent in the first place though? I don't want to linger out the drama, but I don't see much of what could've been mistaken if the PKGBUILD's weren't checked before actually sending in the requests. It looks like the requests were submitted by grawlinson and not you, so I'm just a bit curious about what he was thinking.
---- On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:42:26 -0600 Brett Cornwall via aur-general email@example.com wrote ----
On 2021-12-16 16:58, Hunter Wittenborn via aur-general wrote:
I just received some emails about an hour ago that my 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' packages were deleted off of the AUR because they were duplicates of 'makedeb'  . I'm a bit confused on how exactly they're "duplicates" of makedeb though, as they're literally the beta and alpha releases for makedeb, the lattermost being the stable release.
The only other hypothesis I'd have is that the underlying program is the same, but these are all different releases, and they're all being published so users can use whichever channel they chose. My packages also aren't the only ones following a multi-channel packaging system on the AUR, so I'm not really sure why my packages got flagged like this in particular.
Could I get an explanation for all of this? I'm quite confused on how I could have messed up - recloning the PKGBUILDs for 'makedeb-beta' and 'makedeb-alpha' on my local system is also still clearly showing the differences between the three packages.
Hi, Hunter! Thanks for the email
I must admit, this was probably a poor decision on my part. I should have rejected those requests. I could go into the specifics of my thought process but ultimately it was a gaffe on my part. I'm sorry!
I've reinstated the packages, so please do claim them from the orphanage.
Thanks for the pushback, and I'm sorry again.