MisterFister

Actually, given that I've already asked CKAN several times, and the only responses I've gotten from them were to go to the mod author, and then when the mod author finally asks them a question something gets looked at, what would you suggest I do, O Arbiter Of The Forums. With your snark-ass attitude. And you misspelled Modder, you... *person*.

Any plans to index this mod with CKAN once it's v1.1.2 compliant?

Ok, now I'm wondering what's up. More than a dozen mods that I personally know of are simply not listed on CKAN. Not "filtered out by version filtering," but not listed at all. Some have been restored, but I'm really wondering what's going on. @RoverDude, I am curious if you intend for your mods to be CKAN-indexed, as only a small handful are (if the mod is already installed on your system it'll show, but if you uninstall it or point your CKAN toward a sterile modless copy of KSP, it'll disappear and de-list.) If you do intend for that, and it's pegged as compatible with v1.1.2, I'd be happy to follow up on your other comments last week in the form of me installing your LS mod and trying it out (I lurve the rest of the USI suite anyway) and deciding for myself if I'd prefer this or the TACLS route, which'd prolly be manual-install for a while anyway.

This has been asked at least twenty or thirty times in the last four calendar days. Please scroll back and read the entries. "No" for the end-user. The mod author metadata controls that, for the most part. And the person in the most control of the metadata (at least initially) is the mod author, from what I understand, though there are other hands on it to be sure.

Yes on CCC, not yet on FTP.

Thank you! (And what does PR stand for again?) Oh, Pull Request. Derp. Sorry.

@NecroBones, separate from the issue of IFS being de-listed from CKAN that you and I have both reported to CKAN, I see through chatter here that your most recent version of FTP seems to be working well for KSP v1.1.2. The one listed on CKAN is hard-keyed to v1.1.1 and is therefore filtering against my v1.1.2 as incompatible. Do you have plans to report metadata that your mod is compatible through KSP v1.1.99 or some similar "range" range that would remove the need to re-update it for every hotfix of KSP?

Please delete this, issue resolved literally seconds after I posted. Question remains, however -- is the FAR-with-CKAN thread being monitored? I saw no comment activity on it since October 2015.

As requested by the mod author, I am reporting here that the Kerbal Stock Part Expansion mod lists a flawed forum URL in the metadata. Is there any way I can assist in correcting this?

Howdy! So, does Ferram4 monitor this thread? I mean, no activity on this thread for six months? :'( I see that CKAN absolutely does not list FAR in any way shape or form for any KSP version. (If you think it lists it for you, try uninstalling the mod, it'll be de-listed.) This is perhaps the fourth or fifth mod I've seen this happen to, and there's a lot of chatter on the CKAN thread because of it, but I am coming here anyway because I happen to recall reading that Ferram4 doesn't really "enjoy" the idea of being on CKAN. So, this mod being de-listed could very well have been intentional, I think. Yes I know I can install manually, but there are extremely significant drawbacks to running part-CKAN / part-manual copies of KSP.

Honestly, I go a step further for my own purposes and I uninstall KSP and delete that folder before proceeding. Admittedly, my practice of saving archived copies of all "virgin" (untouched-by-mods-or-by-CKAN) KSP version numbers makes this a more palatable option for me than it may for some. Now that I mention it, I'd guess that it also increases my incentive to run a CKAN-only modset, as well, which would explain my thus-far-inarticulable emphasis on preferring CKAN over manual. :-\ And what you mention about ghost-folders being left behind -- this is, I think, the single best justification for allowing there to be some sort of user-visible "history" within CKAN of what mods were manipulated when, and how, and in what order. Even just date, order, mod entry name, and one-word flags for what was done (installed, updated, "favorited" which we need, uninstalled, "suppressed" or hidden which we also need.)

@FreeThinker @NecroBones

Does this mod play well with other resource mods that bring their own drills, such as Kethane / Karbonite / EPL / KSPIE / others?

Would it be possible to update the CKAN metadata for this mod to reflect this forum thread instead of the Spacedock link? Also, the OP in this thread still has the KerbalStuff link, alongside the Spacedock link?

Have you considered creating a forum thread dedicated to it? I myself came looking for you from CKAN, but all that metadata gives me is a link to the Spacedock page for the mod. Quite difficult to find you otherwise. Yes, I searched through the forums, but for error and bug reporting and feature requests, not having a go-to forum thread can turn away interest. It should also be noted that some people use the forums exclusively for their method of finding new mods.

How does your mod here differ from this one?

Be advised that others, including @NecroBones, reports the same issue I'm reporting, but with your symptom instead of mine. If the mod is installed on your system, CKAN will recognize it and list it. If, however, you were to remove the mod from your system, it'll disappear due to being somehow "de-listed," and you'd be unable to reinstall it. (Due to this, I suggest you backup your GameData to preserve the install prior to testing this to verify my statement.) I assure you, there is a problem with this despite the fact that you can "see" it within your CKAN. Sir, please see above. No reply on the CKAN-thread, but is there something you can do on your end with the mod-version updates to cause it to repopulate on the CKAN index? I ask because you happen to be pushing fixes and updates rather frequently nowabouts, maybe there's something you can do that's specific to that circumstance that can help in addressing the other problem.

Anyone?

The first half of your comment above, with the graphic, seems snarky to me. YMMV. As for this snippet here, could you go into some description of what you mean with the folder wipes thing? I don't know how to articulate my question better, but it may or may not shed insight upon something I'm worried about on my end. If it's out of scope, please feel free to PM me instead.

I will say that Exploder (though I affectionately call it that, with tongue firmly planted into my cheek) is my go-to browser. Since I began using it in 1995, I am 100% certain that there have been exactly three websites that would absolutely not run in that browser. I keep Firefux and Chrome installed for my own convenience in separating my bookmark lists and login cookies as between my various professional endeavors from my porn personal uses, of course, and for troubleshooting purposes as I demonstrated here. As for Edge, I'm on the fence. I'm sure it's a marvelous browser, I'm just intending to ride the Win7 train a bit longer.

I cannot agree more wholeheartedly. Having a mostly-manual modset with CKAN running a small handful of mods is no real issue. The opposite is true, if you have a mostly-CKAN modset with a very small number of manual mods. Having large categories of each is just asking for trouble, especially when trying to convert a mod from manual to CKAN. With v1.1's release of legitimate and stable Win64 support, I predict that the average modset will grow or possibly explode in size. In v1.0.x, I was running MASSIVE installs in Linux64, which I still have backed up. I'm talking installs running so many mods that it's physically impossible to actually count them all (counting GameData folders is misleading, since some modders consolidate multiple mods into the same parent folder underneath GameData, whereas some individual mods install multiple GameData folders. Counting CKAN checkboxes is misleading, since some trigger dependencies, whereas some checkboxes install multiple mod families such as KerbinSide Complete.) My best guess is that I was running somewhere between 235 and 250 mods. Modsets like that are absolutely insane to manage manually -- it can literally take more than an hour just to go through and install them all, and that is a time estimate of what it'll take to update them assuming that a list of those needing updating is already at the ready. Sometimes it's necessary to actually attempt to load KSP once (or more!) just to see if a mod times out due to version mismatches with a prereq mod, and with a KSC idle screen ram footprint tapping the underside of 8GB (on a 16GB system running an i7 with a GTX980) before entering the VAB or TrackingStation, individual loading attempts with no errors took more than fifteen minutes. Longer if I'm waiting through a possible timeout, or if a recently-updated mod needed to perform some first-time-only prep work of some type. For players with offline lives (I graduate from law school in exactly two weeks -- wow! -- followed by the bar exam) any significant or sustained loss of the utility of CKAN is literally game-breaking. I admit that I'm on the outside of the bell curve here, but mod-heavy players will absolutely expand their average modlist, and CKAN's usefulness can only expand.

I use Exploder, Firefux, and Chrome. I checked all three yesterday with the same result before reporting this issue, but I checked all three just now and on all three your site seems to be working well. Hmm. Report retracted?

Fair enough, but with the next version release to CKAN (I'm not suggesting you make a special thing about it) would it be possible to update the metadata to reflect this forum thread?

Sir, this thread is very difficult to find. May I suggest specifying this forum thread as the "homepage" within the CKAN metadata?

Please be advised that the CKAN metadata for this mod sends us to your github instead of this thread. Please also note that none of the links on your site function.