Farix

Not to my knowledge.

Do you have Kopernicus installed? This is a common problem between Kopernicus and EVE.

It would be impossible to enforce a date standard in article titles. For one, most of the players are from the US and would be more accustom to the date format there, so they will naturally prefer to use MONTH DD, YYYY format and wonder why anyone would force another standard onto them. Euros will feel the same way if you try to enforce the US date format on them. So long as dates are understandable and easily readable, it shouldn't matter which date format is used.

You still didn't answer the question. Will SpaceDock/CKAN honor a mod author's request to remove their mod(s) from their website/app?

The question is, if a mod author requests that SpaceDock remove their mod from their repository, will SpaceDock honor the request? The same applies to CKAN.

Never going to happen. Curse already supports mods for multiple games and has an established support team. Fortunately, the CKAN/StarDock folks aren't deceiving themselves into thinking that Squad will ever back them.

It would actually be far better to do a pull request and update the NetCAN file to point to GitHub. GitHub is not going anywhere soon and SpaceDock is not stable enough to be a reliable center of distribution. But ultimately, it is up to the mod author on whether their mods are distributed via CKAN or not. Judging by the sounds of MOARdV's post, he didn't authorize it. And if he didn't authorize it, the CKAN staff should be obligated to remove the metadata.

Use the GitHub repository. https://github.com/TheFarix/TACLS-Declutter-Revised/releases

Sorry, but after a previous hack attack via IRC, I won't go on it anymore. And you should have better support than, "jump on IRC".

Registered last night, never got an email and it wasn't in the "Junk" folder either.

Let me add in my two cents, for all that it is worth. For starters, I'm glad that this new repository is starting completely over. The only reason to "save" the old KerbalStuff repository is to prevent CKAN from breaking in the interim. However, mod authors should be given a month or two to update their links to another repository before CKAN drops the mod from its listing. If the mod developer doesn't update his/her information in that time, then they are not likely to provide support for that mod anyways. Second, I agree with RoverDude in that CKAN support should be opt-in and entirely at the digression of the mod developer. For starters, some mod authors may want to send out an early beta release for testing, but not have it listed on CKAN where users think that it is a full, stable release. At this time, CKAN doesn't distinguish between experimental, beta, and stable releases. Third, I would like to see SpaceDock be primarily a listing or indexing site instead of primarily a repository. This allows mod authors to upload their mods to their preferred repository (Curse, GitHUB, SourceForge, Dropbox, etc.) without also having to upload to SpaceDock. And finally, I would like to see mod authors who do opt-in for CKAN to be able to edit their NetKAN data, either directly or through a web interface. This way, if certain mods need a special installation arrangement, the mod authors can do it directly without have to do a pull request on GitHub. As a post note, I hope that SpaceDock has some form of verification system to ensure that those uploading or linking modes to its index are the mod authors themselves instead of random individuals. It seems that this was a problem with CKAN and that an integrity check is done to ensure that all of those NetKAN/CKAN-meta files where added by the mod authors themselves (either directly or through KerbalStuff) and not some third party. If it was submitted by a third party, it should be pulled from CKAN immediately until the mod author submits a request for a listing.

All of this is fine and dandy, but in the long run, I still think modders are better off in the long run to changing their NetCAN points over to GitHub.

May not be a bad idea. That way, if you have to change repositories, you can do the change on your end without having to submit and wait on a pull-request. https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/wiki/Adding-a-mod-to-the-CKAN#other-host-guide Though honestly, I'm a little surprised that they don't support the same kind of integration with Curse as they do/did with KerbalStuff and GitHub.

For those looking to update their NetCAN files, here is the update I submitted and was accepted { "spec_version" : 1, "identifier" : "TACLS-Declutter", "author" : "Farix", "$kref" : "#/ckan/github/TheFarix/TACLS-Declutter-Revised", "$vref" : "#/ckan/ksp-avc", "name" : "TAC Life Support Declutter Revised", "abstract" : "Reduces 30 TAC Life Support parts down to 6, or even 2 if using TweekScale.", "license" : "MIT", "x_netkan_version_edit": "^[vV]?(?<version>.+)$", "resources": { "homepage": "http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/37449-105-tac-life-support-v01121-12dec/&page=116#comment-1985285" }, "depends": [ {"name": "TACLS"}, {"name": "InterstellarFuelSwitch-Core"}, {"name": "ModuleManager"} ] }

The method of distribution is entirely up to the mod author, not CKAN. The mod author can just as easily point the NetKAN metafile to GitHub or any other location. KerbalStuff simply automated the creation of the NetKAN metafiles, but often got them wrong in the first place.

Because most mod developers won't support 64 bit.

I've tried to update the DLLs via CKAN. Distant Object Enhancement (1.6.4), Kopernicus (Beta 0.6), and PlanetShine (0.2.4.2) all installed fine fine, but updating the EVE DLLs (1.05-4) completely breaks. It's as if it doesn't recognize the cfg files or load the images. However, the default install of EVE does work.

Isn't that what I said? Mods, especially part mods, are not meant to be taken in and out and back in again.

Why would you need to constantly hide/unhide 30 parts when you have two separate methods to reduce the parts down to ~6, not counting the recycles? The point of both TACLS Declutter and MTF is to allow players to configure resource tanks as needed while reducing the number of tanks available in the VAB and SPH. But there is no mod that I am aware of that allows you to easily hide/unhide parts. You will have to create your own Module Manager script, and the shear number of parts will make it cumbersome to unhide, the re-hide a specific part.

Are you planning on removing the decultter script in the middle of a save? If not, then you have nothing to worry about. The reason for the warning is because it creates a new parts while hiding the old parts in the VAB/SPH. If the script is remove, the new parts will no longer exist and any ship using those parts will produce an error when the save is loaded. I think the MFT configs does the exact same thing.

That is why I asked the question, because those are Modular Fuel Systems configuration files (which I think now goes by Modular Fuel Tanks). If you simple want a declutter without the extra sauce of MFT, then I'll shamelessly plug TAC Life Support Declutter Revised.

Do you have Modular Fuel Systems installed?

You will need to edit the .version file

I've updated my declutter script to formally incorporate Interstellar Fuel Switch and TweakScale. I've also made it available on KerbalStuff (along with CKAN) and GitHub. Not sure if I should start my own topics just for the declutter script or keep updating the original post in this topic.