The Comprehensive Kerbal Archive Network (CKAN) Package Manager; v1.18.0 [19 June 2016]

[politas]

21 minutes ago, MisterFister said:

Sorry, that's bullcrap.  @stupid_chris has enough on his plate, please and thank you.  You were correct in suggesting to me that I had a great opportunity to provide a URL to you when I didn't, and that's something that I would've called out someone else for had I been an onlooker, so no worries on that item.  But then you get the info from someone who happened to log in before I had a chance to see this and respond, and your first response is "well I looked at it, no-ma-yob."  No.

Sorry, but the Spacedock entry was created by stupid_chris, and the Mod homepage: Forum Link on there is http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/96464. No CKAN maintainer typed in that URL. We are simply grabbing the information stupid_chris makes available.

[MisterFister]

7 hours ago, politas said:

Sorry, but the Spacedock entry was created by stupid_chris, and the Mod homepage: Forum Link on there is http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/96464. No CKAN maintainer typed in that URL. We are simply grabbing the information stupid_chris makes available.

Ok then.  That actually makes sense.  I for one would've benefitted from some clarity when you first mentioned that.  "Go tell that to the SpaceDock thread, because the easiest fix is to correct that particular info at its source which CKAN just copies and forwards."  If you're familiar with what else I discussed in my same post that you quote from, I hope you'll appreciate my honest mistake in thinking that your reply to go to someone else was simply a deflection instead of an answer.  Nevertheless, I'll know to look into details like that in the future.

7 hours ago, Ippo said:

(I have just been pulled in the conversation by the mention and have no clue of the context of the post) Is there an issue with any of my mods' metadata? If that's the case, let me know and I'll fix it ASAP.

Anyway, from what I gather of the post, the issue is twofold: the metadata and the source of the metadata. Yes, we can manually fix anything we want in the generated metadata, but if the source of the automatically generated metadata has a mistake, we'll keep generating wrong metadata that will need someone to fix it at every update. So it's basically like curing the symptoms without curing the illness.

My apologies in erroneously tagging you.  I did so because I misunderstood what @politas was trying to explain.

Edited May 4, 2016 by MisterFister

[DanHeidel]

@Ippo

I'm not expecting CKAN to police the metadata - that's unreasonable.  However the problem is that the metadata is a fallible source of information.  There's mods that are clearly out of date that claim to be fine.  There's mods that work fine that CKAN refuses to let you load.

The final call should always be made by the user. 

For example, I heavily use Porket's Atomic Age mod.  Most of my craft use engines from it.  I haven't been able to play KSP for 2 weeks because Porket is too busy to fix the version metadata.  Several users have confirmed that the mod works fine on current versions of KSP.  Now I'm left with a decision.  Do I not play?  Do I remove Atomic Age from CKAN and manually install it?  Now I've got to keep track of that somewhere else.  I've got to manually scan SpaceDock and check for updates and install them.  Then I've got to check CKAN to see if the metadata has been updated there.  If it has, I have to delete my manual install and re-enable in CKAN.  Now do that for about 10 other mods.  It's a mess.

CKAN seems to have the same issue that a lot of open source software suffers from - prescriptive workflow.  (don't even get me started on older versions of GIMP)  The creators have a particular workflow they like.  They design the application around that workflow - nothing wrong with that.  the problem is that they then try to enforce that particular workflow, which makes no sense.  If the user wants to use the tool in a different way, why are you stopping them?  That's like making a shovel that's been designed with a curved handle that's optimized to be held in a particular way.  That's fine but what CKAN is doing is putting a bunch of spikes on the rest of the handle so you can't hold it anywhere but the official hand positions.  Maybe I'm really short or tall or have back issues and can't hold the shovel handle the way it's intended?  Why are you going out of your way to prevent me from using the shovel the way that works for me?

If CKAN simply had a provision to do a force install on a mod, that fixes the problem.  It can mark the row in yellow or put a warning icon on it or whatever.  CKAN is perfectly justified in letting me know that I'm ignoring the metadata and potentially breaking my game and that any problems that result are mine to deal with.  If I complain on the forums or Github, they simply ask, "Do you have any forced installs?"  If the answer is yes, they can tell me to stuff it and figure out the problem myself.  I can still use CKAN.  I can track the forced install mod like the others.  When the version finally updates in the metadata, I can remove the force install flag and everything goes back to normal.  Maybe I have game issues as a result but that's my conscious decision and I can live with that.

It's been particularly frustrating since 1.1 came out.  I was patiently waiting and watching all of my mods as they updated to 1.1.  Finally, it was down to 2 out of the ~20 mods waiting on an update.  I was eagerly anticipating playing KSP again. I'd been doing some throw-away career/sandbox runs just to check out the new features but wanted to be able to sit down and do a serious career runthrough with all of my favorite mods.

Then 1.1.1 drops.  Back to square 1.  Then 1.1.2 drops.  Many of the mod makers don't even seem to be bothering updating right now.  They seem to be waiting out this update storm and are holding until Squad gets to a stable version before they bother doing updates. 

That leaves me to either drop CKAN or stop playing KSP.  And that's sad because other than this one issue, CKAN is an awesome utility that greatly simplifies the whole mod management hairball.  But because of that issue, I literally have not been able to play my favorite game for 2 weeks.  Doing this manually is going to kind of suck.  But at least I can actually play my game then.

I'm considering writing my own CKAN-like utility because of this.  And that's really stupid.  Seriously stupid.  It's going to basically be CKAN except with one little added feature.  That's got to be one of the most trivial and unnecessary applications of all time.  Yet I'm considering it because CKAN's functionality was great but now actually makes mod management harder than doing it by hand.

Edited May 3, 2016 by DanHeidel

[Tossy64]

I'd love a "Install mod anyway" for those supposedly out of date mods that I know will work.

[ferram4]

3 hours ago, MisterFister said:

Well, around that time, a version update from v14.x to v15 of the FAR mod involved the need to delete the FAR folder with some files that, with a CKAN-managed scenario, would have been left behind by the old version.  Since users didn't know about this issue, what ended up happening was the new version got installed alongside old files, which sent things completely haywire because that particular version change made the mod behavior peculiarly vulnerable to such an error.

This is not the case.  This was a risk updating between some earlier versions of FAR v0.14.x.x to other versions of v0.14.x.x.  It was not a problem updating from any version of v0.14.x.x in the wild at the time to v0.15.

The problem with the update to v0.15 was that FAR introduced a new dependency (ModularFlightIntegrator).  CKAN's metadata did not install this properly, and CKAN did not do any checking (automated or otherwise) to ensure that the metadata it created would install everything bundled in the zip.  As a result, CKAN users never got the dependency and their games broke.  Once that was fixed, CKAN distributed a slightly out-of-date version of MFI that would cause any install with both FAR and DRE installed to crash.  All because CKAN did not do any error checking on its auto-created metadata.

Since then there haven't been any FAR updates that would fall afoul of the "CKAN not deleting entire folders" feature.  Also, that feature is not capable of creating install errors should one uninstall FAR with CKAN and then reinstall it.  The only source of errors within CKAN for causing FAR errors is either within the metadata or somewhere within the code itself.  I don't know which.

[MisterFister]

3 hours ago, ferram4 said:

This is not the case.  This was a risk updating between some earlier versions of FAR v0.14.x.x to other versions of v0.14.x.x.  It was not a problem updating from any version of v0.14.x.x in the wild at the time to v0.15.

The problem with the update to v0.15 was that FAR introduced a new dependency (ModularFlightIntegrator).  CKAN's metadata did not install this properly, and CKAN did not do any checking (automated or otherwise) to ensure that the metadata it created would install everything bundled in the zip.  As a result, CKAN users never got the dependency and their games broke.  Once that was fixed, CKAN distributed a slightly out-of-date version of MFI that would cause any install with both FAR and DRE installed to crash.  All because CKAN did not do any error checking on its auto-created metadata.

Since then there haven't been any FAR updates that would fall afoul of the "CKAN not deleting entire folders" feature.  Also, that feature is not capable of creating install errors should one uninstall FAR with CKAN and then reinstall it.  The only source of errors within CKAN for causing FAR errors is either within the metadata or somewhere within the code itself.  I don't know which.

I updated my text to reflect what I get from what you just explained, with a caveat that you can explain it better than I ever could.

[danfarnsy]

For the same reason that some mod authors chose to disable their mods in 64-bit windows (e.g. FAR) or to disable running in a version of KSP it wasn't specifically built for (e.g. Kopernicus), I completely understand CKAN being very careful/strict about what they allow users to do or install. The simple fact of the matter is that many users mess things up or think they know better and then come and blame mod authors and ask for support when they failed to follow installation instructions. Just yesterday I was reading some USI mod thread where a user had deleted USI Tools because he thought it was just for developers and he wasn't interested in it. I agree in principle with the points made regarding allowing users the freedom to do what they will and own the responsibility for it, but the reality is that many users will not own the responsibility for it. They come and complain and ask for support, and usually the first stop is not the CKAN thread, but the mod authors.

The purpose of CKAN is to reduce the overhead associated with maintaining mods. That is sometimes broken in the versioning and metadata which doesn't reflect the actual state or prerequisites of the mod. Sometimes this is the mod author's fault, sometimes not. Issues have been exacerbated by the recent KSP updates, and they'll settle down.

For what it's worth, I am opposed to having CKAN become more flexible in letting you break your game on your own (that's what manual installation is for, and all my mods are manually installed at the moment), but it would be worthwhile to have more safeguards in place on the metadata. Perhaps we need more transparency about who maintains the NetKAN file, and have CKAN have obvious links for mod entries about where to get support for CKAN installed mods, and require that to be included before a mod is included/indexed on CKAN. There are a lot of middle men in this process of trying to make it easier for users, but most users are unaware of the middle men, aiming straight for the mod author when something goes wrong. Then it's a lot more fingers being pointed than problems being solved. Even if we can't eliminate needless confusion, we can reduce it. I don't know what we can do for users who think, "I was elected to lead, not to read," but we can at least make the information more obvious and transparent.

[hab136]

@DanHeidel @MisterFister CKAN already lets you install out of date versions - on the command line.

ckan.exe install modname=1.7

This is mentioned in the user guide: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/wiki/User-guide

You can also just change the version number in your README.txt in your KSP directory (which is how CKAN determines what version of KSP you're running), install the outdated mod via command line or GUI, then change the version number back.

 

So CKAN has "a provision to do a force install on a mod".  You can argue that it should be easier for users... but I don't think overriding safety precautions should be easy.  Too many users will do so, and then complain to the mod authors without revealing that they force-installed an old version.  Unending computer problems are caused by users just clicking "ok" to every warning message they encounter, without even reading them.

 

The other thing is that if you're certain a mod works in a new version, why only fix it for yourself? Why not submit a request to get the metadata updated, so everyone can install it?  If you're not comfortable with editing the .ckan files directly (which you can do right in your web browser), just submit an issue like "I've tested modname in 1.1.2 and it works, please mark modname as compatible with 1.1.2".

 

Perhaps this could be more automated.. people who already have it installed could click a button in CKAN to mark the mod as compatible, which would send that request somewhere to be looked at, and update the metadata.

 

If you frame the debate like that - letting people fix their install only for themselves (force install) versus trying to fix everyone's install by updating the metadata - then I have to agree with the CKAN folks in not allowing (easy) force installs.

[politas]

13 hours ago, MisterFister said:

Ok then.  That actually makes sense.  I for one would've benefitted from some clarity when you first mentioned that.  "Go tell that to the SpaceDock thread, because the easiest fix is to correct that particular info at its source which CKAN just copies and forwards."  If you're familiar with what else I discussed in my same post that you quote from, I hope you'll appreciate my honest mistake in thinking that your reply to go to someone else was simply a deflection instead of an answer.  Nevertheless, I'll know to look into details like that in the future.

I took your post entirely seriously, went as far as creating a new branch on my local copy of the NetKAN metadata repository, opened the netkan file, and found no homepage entry there. I then looked at the spacedock page the netkan is pointing at, and saw that it was indeed created by stupid_chris. At that point, I was rather annoyed at stupid_chris' blaming us for a problem he created. 

I was also rather affronted at your tone, attacking us for something that had never been previously brought to our attention. Through all versions of KSP, CKAN is tracking over 1200 mods (admittedly, many of them are not active, but we need to keep aware that they may come back to life at any time). There are about three of us actively maintaining this information, and we try to be as responsive as we can in keeping metadata correct. I get that you were frustrated at a minor incorrect detail, but if you could dial back the accusative tone, you'd get politer responses.

Edited May 4, 2016 by politas
Squad forum nanny

[politas]

13 hours ago, DanHeidel said:

For example, I heavily use Porket's Atomic Age mod.  Most of my craft use engines from it.  I haven't been able to play KSP for 2 weeks because Porket is too busy to fix the version metadata.  Several users have confirmed that the mod works fine on current versions of KSP.  Now I'm left with a decision.  Do I not play?  Do I remove Atomic Age from CKAN and manually install it?  Now I've got to keep track of that somewhere else.  I've got to manually scan SpaceDock and check for updates and install them.  Then I've got to check CKAN to see if the metadata has been updated there.  If it has, I have to delete my manual install and re-enable in CKAN.  Now do that for about 10 other mods.  It's a mess.

Yep. It is exactly the same for us too. CKAN sucks for the first couple of weeks after a new KSP release. Hasn't everyone figured that out, yet? But then, using a heavily modded KSP install without CKAN sucks after a new KSP release, too. That's the nature of mods on a changing runtime environment.

13 hours ago, DanHeidel said:

It's been particularly frustrating since 1.1 came out.  I was patiently waiting and watching all of my mods as they updated to 1.1.  Finally, it was down to 2 out of the ~20 mods waiting on an update.  I was eagerly anticipating playing KSP again. I'd been doing some throw-away career/sandbox runs just to check out the new features but wanted to be able to sit down and do a serious career runthrough with all of my favorite mods.

Then 1.1.1 drops.  Back to square 1.  Then 1.1.2 drops.  Many of the mod makers don't even seem to be bothering updating right now.  They seem to be waiting out this update storm and are holding until Squad gets to a stable version before they bother doing updates. 

And you want CKAN to magically sort this mess out for you? I'm astounded that you'd rather stuff up your KSP game with possibly-incompatible mods than just play stock for a couple of weeks to see what the new release is like.

13 hours ago, DanHeidel said:

I'm considering writing my own CKAN-like utility because of this.  And that's really stupid.  Seriously stupid.  It's going to basically be CKAN except with one little added feature.  That's got to be one of the most trivial and unnecessary applications of all time.  Yet I'm considering it because CKAN's functionality was great but now actually makes mod management harder than doing it by hand.

Here's an idea: rather than write your own CKAN-like utility, help us make CKAN better, by adding the features you want to it. Hell, fork it and make your own version of CKAN that works the way you want it to. CKAN is fully open source, you are most welcome to do so.

[MisterFister]

4 minutes ago, politas said:

I took your post entirely seriously, ...

Because the only items you seem to be reacting to come from the first portion.  I assure you, there is ample context in the rest of what I said, including the spoiler sections, to shed insight on why I reacted the way I did.

And ok, I'll admit for the second time that on this instance with this specific item of metadata, I was mistaken as to context.  Fine.  You got that one from me.  For a second time.  You were right, I was wrong.

Now look at what else I was getting at.  Then realize that I'd spoken with several modders specifically about CKAN indexing issues, at least a dozen of mod authors across the v1.1.1 and v1.1.2 rollout periods.  Then realize that with each and every one of them, I, your user, was put in the middle.  CKAN info was telling me to bring the concern to them.  Those modders tell me to bring the concern here to this thread.  You can search for questions by me, and you won't find them all, because I was enduring final exams and only had small periods of opportunity to get on.

Now I WILL point out that for large numbers of mods -- more than a hundred by this point since v1.1.2 pushed, in fact -- the automated systems that work behind the scenes have worked with no symptoms that I know to ask about.  The individual installments of success outnumber the individual installments of distress.  I grant that.  But those individual installments of distress (not technical distress, "my mod isn't working" distress, but social distress) outweighed the successes, at least for a time.

And then I dug around and researched and read forum archives.  And then I saw you give the answer that you did, which I freely admit for the third time was informationally accurate, but you know something?  Maybe if you could dial back the "go tell the mod author about it" attitude, you'd have gotten a politer response.  Or, in the alternative, at least I'd have cited a different reason for launching into my description of my investigative reporting.

So there's three of you.  Listen, you guys do a lot of good work.  I saw something that I thought needed to be pointed out.  And perhaps the three of you folks who are at the helm now aren't the same as the people who were responsible for the turdstorm that I learned about within the archives.  But I saw friction, and the friction bled off onto me and a few other users. friction that takes place in large measure OUTSIDE the CKAN forum because it's distributed somewhat randomly across the support threads of, well, several hundred other mods.

[politas]

15 hours ago, Rafael acevedo said:

Can you please upload the newest version of kerbal planetary base system into ckan. Thanks

Not sure which mod you're talking about. Can you provide a link to the forum thread / Spacedock / Github / Curse listing?

[Rafael acevedo]

3 minutes ago, politas said:

Not sure which mod you're talking about. Can you provide a link to the forum thread / Spacedock / Github / Curse listing?

https://github.com/Nils277/KerbalPlanetaryBaseSystems/releases/tag/1.0.10 

[politas]

14 hours ago, Wuwuk said:

Kerballoon dont install - bad link.

Fix please.

KerBalloons v0.3.4 is now available.

[politas]

1 hour ago, Rafael acevedo said:

https://github.com/Nils277/KerbalPlanetaryBaseSystems/releases/tag/1.0.10 

Should be available now.

[Rafael acevedo]

Thanks

[Andem]

Someone should probably get Cateye on the proper version number, It's been updated for 1.1.2.

Oh, and Raven hasn't worked on it for over a year, It's been taken over by the community. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by Andem

[Wuwuk]

Deleted.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Wuwuk

[Wuwuk]

11 hours ago, politas said:

KerBalloons v0.3.4 is now available.

Thanks its working.

[politas]

4 hours ago, Andem said:

Someone should probably get Cateye on the proper version number, It's been updated for 1.1.2.

Oh, and Raven hasn't worked on it for over a year, It's been taken over by the community. 

If you mean CactEye-2 Orbital Telescope, the community fork is now available - 2.7.2 is the latest version. There are now two versions available for KSP 1.1, though Angel-125's fork is only up to 1.1.1

Edited May 4, 2016 by politas

[Faolmor]

All the near-future mods and the community tech tree have disappeared from CKAN (at least for me).  Vat is going on?

[Jas0n]

1 hour ago, Faolmor said:

All the near-future mods and the community tech tree have disappeared from CKAN (at least for me).  Vat is going on?

They are still there, they might just not be compatible with your version of KSP. @Nertea probably hasn't gotten around to indexing the new versions for CKAN

 

Also, is there a way to force install a mod that isn't listed as compatible? Like it says it only supports 1.1 but you want to install it on 1.1.2?

[NecroBones]

10 minutes ago, Jas0n said:

Also, is there a way to force install a mod that isn't listed as compatible? Like it says it only supports 1.1 but you want to install it on 1.1.2?

 

Easiest way is probably to edit the KSP version number in KSP's "readme.txt", run CKAN, install what you want, exit CKAN, and then put the version number back.

 

[Onesmallstep]

How can i get this for mac?

[MissMolly]

48 minutes ago, Onesmallstep said:

How can i get this for mac?

yes you can i will need mono from here http://www.mono-project.com

then you can get  Ckan from here Download the latest release