Ben Peachey

There is in fact an issue requesting that BPKG be rewritten in POSIX cimpliant terms. (see #90). I am very much in favor of that issue and have already done...

@Lohn I'd say your motion has been [seconded and carried](https://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_motion_carried_mean)!

I'll leave this issue open for now, until we have documented that ShellSpec is our weapon of choice for unit-testing. (We need to create a `CONTRIBUTING.md` anyway, so this is...

I can't speak for any of the other maintainers, but for me, this MR is too large and tries to add too many things all at once. Personally, I'd rather...

I've opened #116 to coordinate the effort to get these changes incorporated into the BPKG code-base.

I've marked this pull-request as work-in-progress. We can leave it open for now, until all the work has been ported over into smaller PRs.

After the refactor of #140 and release of V1, several of the changes from this MR can be added/implemented. Any news MRs will be listed and at https://github.com/bpkg/bpkg/issues/116

If the workload to make `bpkg` POSIX compliant is too large, I wouldn't mind donating some time to help. Just a thought but would it be useful to use [BASH...

> What was the reasons to have packages.json name (used by npm) ? There's a discussion answering this question here: https://github.com/bpkg/bpkg/issues/17 I'd also like to have `bpkg.json` rather than `packages.json`.

I honestly don't know... @jwerle is the most active  but I'm guessing he doesn't have much time to spend on this project. I'd say things are...