Although I strongly disagree, I will defer to you out of respect for your responsibility as moderator. Since I still desire to create a compatibility layer between pacaur's interface and bauerbill's backend (for packages that depend on pacaur such as cylon, etc.), how would you recommend I publish such a layer in a way that avoids the confusion you mentioned?
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 4:24 AM Jelle van der Waa, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/30/17 at 11:15pm, Kieran Colford wrote: > > No one as expressed a valid reason for removal aside from an unclear > > purpose. I have corrected that now so it should be fine. > > The package really serves no purpose just as the previous one. It will > only cause confusion since pacaur calls bauerbill, which is reason > enough for me to remove it. > > -- > Jelle van der Waa > -- Signed, Kieran Colford
