Changing the root project to a fork

[native-api]

Since this repo is abandoned, I'm going to request Github support to move the root project marker to https://github.com/kou1okada/apt-cyg

According to http://forked.yannick.io/transcode-open/apt-cyg , it's the only fork with any kind of active maintaining going on. Yes, it deviates from the original and has a lot of potentially redundant features. But regardless of your stance on that, there are no other forks that can compare: others do not even fix the reported critical issues, so they are unusable.

The only other fork which seems has meaningful changes is https://github.com/ilatypov/apt-cyg . It attempts to make a bootstrapping mechanism, but the feature seems incomplete (if it was complete, bootstrapping operations wouldn't be reported as user commands but rather invoked automagically when any of the packages apt-cyg relies upon need to be updated).

@ilatypov , as the only potential rival, do you have any reservations about this action? Is your fork usable and/or maintained? Since your repo doesn't even accept bug reports, it doesn't seem like you're willing to pick up the torch.

[sn-donbenjamin]

My fork is usable. Its very useful
I will research what your saying/asking and reply asap.

[native-api]

@sn-donbenjamin your fork is "even with transcode-open:master".

[sn-donbenjamin]

thanks these are things I was going to check when I got back to a computer :-)

[ilatypov]

Thanks for asking, I did not have reservations. @kou1okada's development of apt-cyg looks very good to me. (I kept myself stuck to using ash in trying to reduce the number of DLLs locked during package installs. Mind you this helps in using apt-cyg for installing extra packages only for some time after the install/upgrade while the mirror still holds the same or previous version of Cygwin. I wish there was a mirror or an artifactory preserving all versions of Cygwin. That way apt-cyg install PACKAGE would never fail to find the install-time versions of packages and therefore would not require the apt-cyg update invokation. The update command will cause attempts to replace running DLLs during subsequent installs or require a dist-upgrade).

The dist-upgrade implementation looks good to me. (I am still curious how and if and why that avoided terminating the currently running shell).

My clumsy attempt to bypass a Zscaler outgoing filter and "fix" ACLs resulted in a poor man's CMD batch file, https://gist.github.com/ilatypov/5956ae36da8ff0aa2212eb2004def8c4 . Cheers!

[ilatypov]

BTW I don't get the question. I am not aware about a Github's committee or process that would decide which project deserves a "root" status. The yannick's sorting could benefit from including the number of commits (as well as commits behind and ahead of the root project).

[native-api]

@ilatypov Thank you for a timely reply! The issue was created because I remember a controversy about someone aggressively advertising their forked project or something or being accused of deviating from the project's initial goals. So I decided to make extra sure that the process goes smoothly and Github staff is sure they are not being used as a pawn in someone's game.

I believe the feedback received so far is enough and have filed the request to them, referencing this issue as an additional argument.

[RyuDragonRyder]

I have been using the fork that @native-api spoke of because it is usable, unlike this one which i kept getting errors from and found no way to report bugs.

[native-api]

@cup commented on Mar 25, 2019, 9:23 PM GMT+3

I have a similar project here that is up to date

https://github.com/cup/pear

That's better but still off topic for the current discussion and might be in violation of https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#k-advertising-on-github , too.

[native-api]

Status update:

I filed the request to Github support about a month ago. Strangely, they requested an explicit okay from @transcode-open (I had such requests granted in the past without this). I mailed @transcode-open on the address specified in their profile and, expectedly, got no reply. I followed up the support on this on 19.03 and got no reply from them, either. I sent them a follow-up just now also asking if there's some legal roadblock or something ('cuz it doesn't seem so thanks to the MIT license).

[kou1okada]

Why he erased the first post and came back soon?
Beause I removed my last post?
I will write again, he is the man who killed apt-cyg by evil DMCA takedown!
No way!
He must understand what OSS license is!
I don't want to see tragedy like #73 again.

[native-api]

@kou1okada don't feed the troll. Leaving evidence of his wrongdoings as I did so that it's possible to take action when it piles up will likely work as a deterrent.

@native-api I would like to add that I was a contributor to this repo, as can be seen on my tag. A fact no one else in this thread can claim.

So I think calling me a troll is not appropriate.

https://github.com/transcode-open/apt-cyg/graphs/contributors