Recently I got an e-mail from a package maintainer asking me to unlist my fork of said package from NuGet due to my fork "confusing nuget users".
I've never encountered a request like this before and as I have a few more forks like that I now wonder whether I'm doing something wrong and if I should unlist my other forks as well.
source code of the original package (any my fork too) is available on GitHub
there is no LICENSE.md file but in the readme is a section stating:
This project is Copyright © 2021 XXX. Free for non-commercial use. For commercial use please contact the author.
clicking "License Info" on NuGet brings up Apache 2.0 license for both the original repo and the fork (which is weird as the author is prohibitng commercial use in GitHub readme without a commercial license)
Me and my friends needed to use the package with a change (a minor one but still blocking our use cases)
I've opened a PR with said change and got no response from the maintainer
hence I've published my fork to NuGet
the original package is called Package, my fork was available as Package-lof (my handle, unlisted after I got the request)
Related
I have an open-source repo on GitHub called Gamgee. (It's a dinky little music queue bot built on Node.js, in case you're curious.) It's been around for not much more than a week and doesn't export anything useful as a package, yet GitHub already reports that this repo is "used by" another repository of the same name.
The referenced package is very small and doesn't seem to list any dependencies at its root package.json other than TypeScript. Is this a GitHub bug, or am I missing something here? If this is a GitHub bug, where might I report those?
Hello I have published a library in my GitHub repository and i want to use the used by button in the repository
I checked the repository settings but found no options to enable it
How do I enable this button in my repository?
netlify/staticgen issue 507 also asks, as you do:
GitHub introduced a new metric, which I find much more relevant than stars or downloads. It shows the number of times a dependency is used by other repositories.
How is this metric added to a repository?
GitHub shows package metrics for projects that use a package manager, eg. if your repo has a package.json, it will use that to show your dependency network.
It is then automatically analyzed by GitHub, which scan other repository where your project reference shows up.
This was announced last May 2019 by GitHub.
And it can be misleading (for monorepos)
Official documentation: "Listing the projects that depend on a repository"
This is only for projects using:
RubyGems
NPM
PyPI
Maven (pom.xml only)
Nuget
Check the supported languages.
Following page page points to Github's page where pre-build binaries are contained. If I have not found first mentioned page first then I would have not an idea that such page (with pre-build binaries) exists on Github. Is it usual to put some pre-build binaries under releases on GitHub (I've seen it also other times e.g. with gns3)? Is there any link on project's Github page which will point me to releases (maybe I can add releases to corresponding URL but I guess there must be some link which points to it)
The "release" pages is available on any GitHub project. You can access it quickly using the link on top of project (between branches and contributors):
GitHub release page is computed from Git repository tags. The maintainer of the project is free to use it or not, but it's a common practice to transform a git tag into a release, attaching a description (changelog, release note, etc) and/or some files (pre-build packages, setups, DMGs, etc.)
GitHub team wrote a blog post a few years ago to explain this feature.
We recently moved from subversion to git, and then to Github, for several open source projects. Github was nice in that it provided a lot of functionality. One of the things I particularly like is the ability to download tags as zip or .tar.gz files.
Unfortunately Github recently discontinued downloads. That shouldn't be a problem because of the ability to download tags. However in the past we have not put a Makefile , configure script or any other autoconf-generated files into the repo because they get lots of conflicts when people merge.
What's the proper way to handle this?
Should I put autoconf and automake-generated files in the repo so people can download tags directly?
Or should there be a bootstrap.sh file and people are told to run that?
Or should I just do a make dist and put that into the repo?
Thanks
Publish the output of make dist via GitHub Releases
Your first option—putting the Autoconf- and Automake-generated files into the repository—is not a good idea. It's almost never beneficial to store generated files in source control. In this case, it's going to pollute your history with a lot of unnecessary and potentially conflicting commits, particularly if not all your contributors are using the same version of Autotools. Your third option—checking in the output of make dist—is a bad idea for exactly the same reasons as the first option.
Your second option—adding a "bootstrap" script that calls Autoconf and Automake to generate the configure scripts—is also a bad idea. This defeats the entire purpose of Autotools, which is to make your source portable across systems—including those for which Autotools is not available! (Consider what would happen if someone wanted to build and install your software on a machine on which they don't have root access, and where the GNU Build System is not installed. A bootstrap script is not going to help them because they'd first need to make a local installation of Autotools and possibly all its dependencies.)
The proper way of releasing code that uses Autotools is to produce a tarball with make dist (or better yet, make distcheck, since this will also run tests and do other sanity checks), and then publish this tarball somewhere other than the source repository.
Your original question, from April 2013, states that GitHub discontinued download pages. However, in July 2013, GitHub added a "Releases" feature that not only pre-packages your source tags, but also allows you to attach arbitrary files to each release. So on GitHub, the Releases page is where you should publish your make dist tarballs (and preferably also the detached GnuPG signatures of them).
Basic steps
When you are ready to make a release, tag it and push the tag to GitHub:
$ git tag 1.0 # Also use -s if desired
$ git push --tags
Use your Makefile to produce a tarball:
$ make dist # Alternatively, 'make distcheck'
Visit the GitHub page for your project and follow the "releases" link:
You will be taken to the Releases page for your project. The first time you visit, all you will see is a list of tags and automatically produced tarballs from the source tree:
Press the "Draft a new release" button.
You will then be presented with a form in which you should fill in the Git tag associated with the release and an optional title and description. Below this there is also a file selector labelled "Attach binaries by dropping them here or selecting them". Use this to upload the tarball you created in Step 2 (and maybe also a detached GnuPG signature of it).
When you're done, press the "Publish release" button.
Your project's Releases page will now display the release, including prominent download links for the attached files:
If you don't want to use GitHub Releases, then as pointed out in a previous answer, you should upload the tarballs somewhere else, such as your own website or FTP site. Add a link to this repository from your project's README.md so that users can find it.
The second is better: you want any user of your repo to be up and running as fast as possible, re-generating what he/she needs in order to build your program.
Since Git is very much a version control for text (as opposed to an artifact repo like Nexus), providing a way to generate the final binary is the way to go.
When you cut a release, upload the result of make distcheck to your project's download page: it's a makefile target that builds the tarball and verifies that it installs, uninstalls, passes tests and other sanity checks. Github being wrong-headed isn't an excuse: create a tree like this in your repo:
/
/source
/source/configure.ac
/source/Makefile.am
/source/...
/releases
/releases/foo-0.1.tar.gz
/releases/...
For developers, you should not have generated files in source control. Many modern autotooled projects bootstrap fine off an invocation of autoreconf -i.
I want allow users to download executable of one of my project on github, without downloading all sources or browsing the entire project.
According to this similar question, you could use a upload/download service, which apparently, github has shut down.
So is there another way? Is github aiming at sharing code only, not software?
Update 2d July 2013, you now can define a release.
Releases are accompanied by release notes and links to download the software or source code.
Following the conventions of many Git projects, releases are tied to Git tags. You can use an existing tag, or let releases create the tag when it's published.
You can also attach binary assets (such as compiled executables, minified scripts, documentation) to a release. Once published, the release details and assets are available to anyone that can view the repository.
This is what replaces the old binary upload service, which was removed in December 2012!
Ideally, you would store your executable in an artifact repository, as opposed as a source repository like GitHub.
So yes, GitHub is for source control management, not deliveries (like binaries produced from your code).
Nexus is the usual choice for any generated artifacts like binaries, with a free upload possibility for open-source projects.
See "How do I get my software into Central?" (from this answer, also mentioned in "Maven repository hosting for non-public artifacts?")
You can create another repository to host all your builds , I mean executable files . With in that repository don't add any of your code other than your builds ,
As a result of this , people can click on download Zip button at git hub , which downloads only executable ( as a zip file ).
while building you can copy the executable file in a folder just push to remote repository which is hosting only builds .
Hope this helps .
basically , GIT is just an SCM ( source code management system ) it is not meant for this purpose .
but still this how you can utilize the service of github.org amd git .
hope this helps .
EDIT : -
Git hub now has a solution for hosting releases it has been well explained by #VonC in the post below . Please use that as a solution.
The following worked for me, YMMV. On a MAC and using Chrome browser, after getting to this page I clicked on the "Raw" button (the "View Raw" link also worked), and it downloaded the executable tatuMicro.kit to my Downloads folder
An exe file can be hosted under releases and the link can be distributed among friends etc. I tested it as recently as yesterday. Only issue is if someone sabotages the program for profit. The exe files can be moved around and distributed easily on pendrives.