TASEmulators
Find the guy who's maintaining the choco package
~~and whap 'em 🗞️~~ and ask them politely to give us whatever keys/perms you need for making changes
edit: leaving these here https://repology.org/project/bizhawk/versions, #3215
no. then it's our problem. rewrite this issue as "make conscious decision to adopt choco distribution" so it's clear this is increased scope. and then as a subtask "for better quality, adopt the existing choco package"
This is primarily about security, and secondarily about having the choco package be useful.
You can't control everyone distributing your shit in weird packages. Don't even start trying. It's better to have a firm policy of "ALL of that stuff is unofficial crap. if you're not reading about it HERE on the official page it's UNOFFICIAL"
I agree with Zeromus here. There are dozens of package distribution systems. It's not scalable to try to own and manage your package in all of them, and I'm not sure your MIT license allows you to try to prevent other people from distributing it either.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software
The only argument here then, is whether you don't want them to re-use the name "BizHawk" because you think it falsely implies that it's an official distribution. In that case, you could presumably reach out to the site admins and ask they give you the "bizhawk" package name. But I'm not sure it's a great use of time to do the same for every other package distribution system either.
If our binaries were signed I wouldn't care nearly as much. Your point about the license is correct though.
@Xav83 Hey, thanks for putting in the work for the choco package. Could you please push 2.10?