1) If you don't believe those packages should exist then why haven't any of them been flagged for deletion? They're right there on the dependency lists, you can find them pretty easily. The precedent has already been set, you are way too late to start cleaning up these packages you deem unfit for the AUR. 2) It is far more modular to have the various Aur helpers be interchangeable rather than repeat the same code over and over again with each upstream package. This is not a bug that makes sense to upstream when there are so many upstreams to simultaneously work with. That being said, it may make sense to bring all Aur helpers under a single unified interface and have a package for that, but good luck dragging the community kicking and screaming along with you. There are thousands of bad packages in the AUR. Why does this one deserve such belligerence? What you may see as useless, I see as entirely valuable and vice versa. There is only so much a mere shell alias can accomplish while a full package actually articulates with pacman's logic, which is what I require. Furthermore, your ad hominem sentiments are unnecessary and crass. They could easily have been left out of your reply. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:35 PM Eli Schwartz, wrote: On 01/30/2017 06:15 PM, 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.

This doesn't appear to have made its way to the aur-requests ML, I assume kcolford is not subscribed and therefore his email was rejected. And I am pretty sure this package is still just as useless as it was before the pkgesc was modified, given that rewording it to say the same thing does not actually add a new purpose that wasn't there before. I suggest that people who want to use bauerbill should go ahead and do so, rather than feeling some sort of psychological need to type "pacaur" into their interactive shell prompt in preference to "bauerbill". And if you really need that psychological need, then ~/.bashrc is your friend; stop uploading your personal aliases to the AUR. As for "satisfy[ing] any dependencies on pacaur", I cannot imagine why you would need such a thing, since pacaur is not the type of package that other packages would be depending on. Except for multiply-layered AUR helpers, which 1) shouldn't exist, and 2) should have interchangeable backends for their multiply-layered bad idea, so file an upstream bug. -- Eli Schwartz -- Signed, Kieran Colford

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