Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove KJR provides from KJRNext #7221

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 1, 2019
Merged

Remove KJR provides from KJRNext #7221

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 1, 2019

Conversation

HebaruSan
Copy link
Member

@HebaruSan HebaruSan commented Jun 1, 2019

Problems

#7101 indexed KerbalJointReinforcementNext with a provides property containing KerbalJointReinforcement, because this module is a successor module and might be preferred by some users who, say, install a craft module recommending KJR. This has caused two problems so far:

  • In RO and KJR netkan issue #7203 a RealismOverhaul team member reported that KJRNext providing KJR causes issues for them:

    Also I would like to point out KJR NEXT should NOT be able to provide for KJR. RO/RSS does not support next at all. It has known issues with the RO/RSS suite of mods, in fact both RO and KJR Continued conflicts with next yet ckan seems to be allowing people to install it with these mods.

  • In Internal Robotics Next #7210 we discovered that it's very difficult, if even possible, for IRNext to conflict with old KJR and KJRContinued without also conflicting with KJRNext. Since KJRNext provides KJR, any conflicts relationship with KJR implicitly includes KJRNext as well, and the min_version and max_version properties of such a conflict relationship are only applied to KJR, not KJRNext.

Changes

Now KJRNext no longer provides KJR. This should help the RO folks with whatever conflicts they were having, and also allow us to have IRNext conflict with KJR and KJRContinued while recommending KJRNext.

(Note that older versions will be updated in a separate pull request in CKAN-meta.)

@HebaruSan
Copy link
Member Author

@DasSkelett , do you think this is the right way forward?

Copy link
Member

@DasSkelett DasSkelett left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I think it's the best and easiest solution to this all, without requiring hacky tricks or changes in CKAN/NetKAN.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants