Pāladhammika schreef op za 12-02-2022 om 16:21 [+0000]:
Are they? The trustcrypto fork claims to be 12 commits ahead.
> Even still it makes sense to use the fork that by trustcrypto
> since they also produce the onlykey package, no?

AFAICT the fork is exactly the same as upstream, except with a slightly
different name, without any text in the README and with some
docstrings, warnings and error messages tweaked.

The only non-tweak commit appears to be
<https://github.com/trustcrypto/onlykey-solo-python/commit/1d4e03ac00a60286554f4a8f4f22bf892446788e>,
which seems a tiny change that should have been discussed upstream
(maybe it's as simple as recognising both pairs of vendor_id/product_id).

Also, no development seems to happen in the fork, development happens
upstream.  The fork does not appear to accept pull requests and there
is no option for submitting an issue, whereas upstream does, so it
seems that upstream has a much better community.

Considering all this, this does not appear to be a fork
in the sense that, say, XEmacs is a fork of Emacs.  Instead, it appears
to be pure branding -- and branding that will cause collisions in the profile
at that if both upstream and the trustcrypto-branded variant are installed
in the same profile, since the variant didn't change module names.

As such, I do not see a reason to prefer the branded variant over upstream,
and I would recommend not to, to prevent future problems (see profile
collisions), to reduce the number of packages that need to be updated
and to not cater to marketing.

Greetings,
Maxime.