search

memo33 / sc4pac

Metadata channel of package manager Sc4pac
https://memo33.github.io/sc4pac/
GNU General Public License v3.0
6 stars 7 forks source link

add dependencies #26

Closed noah-severyn closed 4 months ago

noah-severyn commented 4 months ago

A lot of stuff here. I'm trying to add all of the content from the Prop & Texture catalog because I'm tired of maintaining an entire second database of metadata about the packs (links, versions, dates, etc.).

memo33 commented 4 months ago

Thank you. I've made a few adjustments. Let me know if you're okay with them or if you have any questions.

Generally, I think not every dependency in existence needs to be added to this channel, but only those that would reasonably be used by other packages. There are also some dependencies I haven't added yet as I'm not sure how to best handle them (e.g. BNL Essentials), but that's unrelated to this PR.

noah-severyn commented 4 months ago

All good fixes, thanks. I'll keep in mind the stylistic stuff you changed and I see some issues with my tool mangling some URLs which I'll fix. Two questions:

  1. ~The reason for commenting out the airport pack?~ I see the comment now.
  2. Some of Barroco Hispano's (AGC) content is v4 or v5 etc. on the STEX, so I made the asset version equal to what was on the STEX but the package version equal to 1 which you corrected. My thought was the asset versions should always match STEX/SC4E and the package versions were independent of that. Was that a wrong assumption?
  3. Re the very-old-buildings-props, the reason I gave it the group STEX Custodian is because there seems to be some disagreement as to who the actual author of those files is. I don't know what to do in this case where there is only a "most probable" or "best guess" author.
memo33 commented 4 months ago

Thanks for the feedback.

  1. Some of Barroco Hispano's (AGC) content is v4 or v5 etc. on the STEX, so I made the asset version equal to what was on the STEX but the package version equal to 1 which you corrected. My thought was the asset versions should always match STEX/SC4E and the package versions were independent of that. Was that a wrong assumption?

No, your assumption is correct. Functionally, the two versions are completely independent from each other. However, as only the package version is visible for end users of sc4pac, I try to keep the two versions in sync so that it's easier to see whether the data is up-to-date with the original upload. (Though, admittedly, distinguishing between 1 and 1.0.0 here is maybe not that important.)

  1. Re the very-old-buildings-props, the reason I gave it the group STEX Custodian is because there seems to be some disagreement as to who the actual author of those files is. I don't know what to do in this case where there is only a "most probable" or "best guess" author.

Oh good point. I'll change it back then.

Regarding the airport pack, it's currently actively being worked on. I don't know the extent of the changes, so my intent was to avoid introducing new packages now that might not exist anymore very soon from now – as there's no easy way to rename or deprecate packages yet.