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, <> 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