[aur-requests] [PRQ#7392] Deletion Request for bauerbill-over-pacaur

[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, <jelle at vdwaa.nl> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20170131/64508680/attachment.html>