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

[Rafael acevedo]

Oh no! We tried to overwrite a file owned by another mod!
Please try a `ckan update` and try again.

If this problem re-occurs, then it maybe a packaging bug.
Please report it at:

https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN-meta/issues/new

Please including the following information in your report:

File           : GameData/DistantObject/PluginData/Settings.cfg
Installing Mod : DistantObject v1.7.2
Owning Mod     : DistantObject-default
CKAN Version   : v1.18.0-0-geeb9127 (beta)

Your GameData has been returned to its original state.

 

Error!

[hirschhornsalz]

On KSP-1.1.3:

The version of modular flight integrator (MFI-1.1.3), which CKAN installs as dependency to Kopernicus-1.1.2, breaks solar panels. A newer version, MFI-1.1.5, works.

[gobolinno]

Spoiler

See the end of this message for details on invoking 
just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.

************** Exception Text **************
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
   at CKAN.Main.DefaultSorter(DataGridViewRow row)
   at System.Linq.EnumerableSorter`2.ComputeKeys(TElement[] elements, Int32 count)
   at System.Linq.EnumerableSorter`1.Sort(TElement[] elements, Int32 count)
   at System.Linq.OrderedEnumerable`1.<GetEnumerator>d__1.MoveNext()
   at System.Linq.Buffer`1..ctor(IEnumerable`1 source)
   at System.Linq.Enumerable.ToArray[TSource](IEnumerable`1 source)
   at CKAN.Main._UpdateFilters()
   at CKAN.Util.Invoke[T](T obj, Action action)
   at CKAN.Util.Invoke[T](T obj, Action action)
   at CKAN.Main.PostInstallMods(Object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
   at System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker.OnRunWorkerCompleted(RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)

************** Loaded Assemblies **************
mscorlib
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework64/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll
----------------------------------------
ckan
    Assembly Version: 0.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 0.0.0.0
    CodeBase: file:///E:/ckan.exe
----------------------------------------
System.Configuration
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll
----------------------------------------
System
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Core
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Xml
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Windows.Forms
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Drawing
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
----------------------------------------
Microsoft.GeneratedCode
    Assembly Version: 1.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll
----------------------------------------
Microsoft.CSharp
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Microsoft.CSharp/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Microsoft.CSharp.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Numerics
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Numerics/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Numerics.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Dynamic
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Dynamic/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Dynamic.dll
----------------------------------------
Anonymously Hosted DynamicMethods Assembly
    Assembly Version: 0.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/mscorlib/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/mscorlib.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Runtime.Serialization
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.Serialization/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Runtime.Serialization.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Xml.Linq
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml.Linq/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.Linq.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Data
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/System.Data/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Data.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Transactions
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/System.Transactions/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Transactions.dll
----------------------------------------
System.EnterpriseServices
    Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 4.6.1055.0 built by: NETFXREL2
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/System.EnterpriseServices/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.EnterpriseServices.dll
----------------------------------------

************** JIT Debugging **************
To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this
application or computer (machine.config) must have the
jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section.
The application must also be compiled with debugging
enabled.

For example:

<configuration>
    <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
</configuration>

When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception
will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer
rather than be handled by this dialog box.

 

This is happening anytime I try to update a MOD. =/

 

[Undecided]

On 23/06/2016 at 10:34 AM, passinglurker said:

oi! pjf!
you guys should really do the neighborly thing and make your system opt-in only. What would you do if mod authors suddenly start going ARR or packaging thier mods to break under CKAN like what roverdude and ferram4 threaten to do in this recently locked thread.

Wait, what? I was about to post asking why my USI mods have suddenly upped and vanished from the CKAN index and my mod folders for them were at 0KB. I thought it was a bug -- but did I miss some sort of drama?

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, Undecided said:

Wait, what? I was about to post asking why my USI mods have suddenly upped and vanished from the CKAN index and my mod folders for them were at 0KB. I thought it was a bug -- but did I miss some sort of drama?

Basically the mod authors got sick of ckan forcing them in to the indexing system and then screwing up installs so they are now demanding the right to be delisted as they see fit regardless of licence no questions asked because after a year of this they don't have confidence in ckan to not cause then grief.

Really this is just a protest most authors just want the option and would relist their mod once they know that their wishes would be respected.

[Undecided]

10 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Basically the mod authors got sick of ckan forcing them in to the indexing system and then screwing up installs so they are now demanding the right to be delisted as they see fit regardless of licence no questions asked because after a year of this they don't have confidence in ckan to not cause then grief.

Really this is just a protest most authors just want the option and would relist their mod once they know that their wishes would be respected.

Makes sense. If CKAN is messing up, it'd be basically causing the authors a lot more overhead in terms of having to process false support issues caused by CKAN.

What's causing it? Sloppy management of files by CKAN management, or is the upload/download system prone to corrupting files?

[Guest]

Can someone merge my pull request? https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN-meta/pull/1185

I really don't want to make my license restricted.

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, Undecided said:

Makes sense. If CKAN is messing up, it'd be basically causing the authors a lot more overhead in terms of having to process false support issues caused by CKAN.

What's causing it? Sloppy management of files by CKAN management, or is the upload/download system prone to corrupting files?

Mostly bad metadata but it's most apparent with popular mods like far and usi because Ckan let's anyone input metadata so there are a lot of eager beavers increasing the rate at which mistakes happen. There are a lot of proposed ways to address and mitigate this problem but the clincher here is that these issues have been known for over a year and still haven't been fixed so like I said there is no confidence in ckan and authors are done waiting they want to be able to pull out without debate when things get bad every extra solution that follows after is essentially just ways to minimize how often they have to resort to delisting to reduce their support work load.

[politas]

1 hour ago, CliftonM said:

Can someone merge my pull request? https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN-meta/pull/1185

I really don't want to make my license restricted.

Merged.

A notice for CKAN users. I am about to largely break CKAN by removing ModuleManager. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience. See this discussion for the background. I hope CKAN can return to being a useful tool soon.

[nobodyhasthis2]

1 hour ago, Undecided said:

Makes sense. If CKAN is messing up, it'd be basically causing the authors a lot more overhead in terms of having to process false support issues caused by CKAN.

What's causing it? Sloppy management of files by CKAN management, or is the upload/download system prone to corrupting files?

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Mostly bad metadata but it's most apparent with popular mods like far and usi because Ckan let's anyone input metadata so there are a lot of eager beavers increasing the rate at which mistakes happen. There are a lot of proposed ways to address and mitigate this problem but the clincher here is that these issues have been known for over a year and still haven't been fixed so like I said there is no confidence in ckan and authors are done waiting they want to be able to pull out without debate when things get bad every extra solution that follows after is essentially just ways to minimize how often they have to resort to delisting to reduce their support work load.

Bad metadata will start it off but that is not really thing that ticks off most mod authors. If there is a bug how does a typical end user try fix it? 

Click on the forum link in GUI. Start a complaint to mod authors. Which bypasses at least 3 end user debugging workflows that usually fixes all of the problems.

The outcome of this really is a bit of a lottery for the end user. Some mod authors would like to hear from you and will help. Others will try to publicly humiliate anyone that asks a CKAN support question. It is not that they are being nasty for the sake of it. It is just soul destroying to keep seeing bug reports over something they don't control. There is also no way that they can stop end users from sending them the extra forum traffic.

In the past we have even had to call in forum moderator support to clean things up and that is bad. It marks a basic failure to work together as a community. Complaining to a mod author who has nothing to do with the metadata also hides the problem from the CKAN people. They are usually the last to know that something has gone wrong. It does not stop there. With a new version of KSP just watch how many people break the forum rules regarding update requests to mod authors. Asking for a mod to be put on CKAN. Now the people doing this will usually be new comers into KSP forums. It is a simple mistake to make. Mod is on CKAN. Mod author must have done it.

No it a crowd sourced list of metadata. Nothing to do with with the majority of mod authors. Why should they be the natural first point of contact. We have had mod authors being harassed for months in the past over things that take 5 minutes to fix. All it took was a single report to the right place.

When mod authors do make mistakes ( a typo on space dock entry is a good example where the API passes a "correct" .Netkan ). Simply saying CKAN is now broken does not help. They need to know exactly what is wrong and that requires a check of the repo metadata first. They can fix the typo but don't expect them to investigate the initial CKAN issue. 

Now we could fix the bug reporting workflow but not fast enough. Whilst waiting for changes we still going to get new people coming along and sending messages to mod authors. So can mod authors turn CKAN off even in a temporary capacity whilst changes go through. No is the answer. Unless they use an ARR license to force the mod off of CKAN.

Yes they now need a special licence to control email. One that prohibits mod collaboration on mod creation. Honestly they don't want to do this but as end users we backed them into a corner. They feel there is no other option.

[kiwi1960]

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Basically the mod authors got sick of ckan forcing them in to the indexing system and then screwing up installs so they are now demanding the right to be delisted as they see fit regardless of licence no questions asked because after a year of this they don't have confidence in ckan to not cause then grief.

Really this is just a protest most authors just want the option and would relist their mod once they know that their wishes would be respected.

"most authors"???? Proof please. You cannot speak for "most authors" and I suggest you poll *ALL* authors before making such a comment.

[Guest]

Just now, kiwi1960 said:

"most authors"???? Proof please. You cannot speak for "most authors" and I suggest you poll *ALL* authors before making such a comment.

It's a good majority of mod authors.  If you look at the CKAN repo and compare it with how many mods were in it two weeks ago, you'll get an idea.  I suggest you read the posts linked.

[kiwi1960]

8 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

It's a good majority of mod authors.  If you look at the CKAN repo and compare it with how many mods were in it two weeks ago, you'll get an idea.  I suggest you read the posts linked.

Read? I posted in them. You STILL cannot even use rule of thumb with such a statement because appearances can be deceiving. Some authors may even say one thing and vote another way if you took a poll... the point being, YOU cannot speak for the "good majority" (as opposed to what? The bad majority?) unless you have the hard proof (not evidence, PROOF) in front of you.

Otherwise, you can say anything you want "for the majority"... you cannot. Let them speak for themselves.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Read? I posted in them. You STILL cannot even use rule of thumb with such a statement because appearances can be deceiving. Some authors may even say one thing and vote another way if you took a poll...

Well, these people I have known for quite some time, and I take them for their word.  

Quote

the point being, YOU cannot speak for the "good majority" (as opposed to what? The bad majority?) unless you have the hard proof (not evidence, PROOF) in front of you.

Don't try to pull that.  You know exactly what I meant.  Good majority means a sizable one.  One that is large.  Proof = evidence.  Really, though, evidence is stronger than just proof, and what I have given you is evidence, therefore you have your proof.

Quote

Otherwise, you can say anything you want "for the majority"... you cannot. Let them speak for themselves.

They have spoken for themselves.  I'm just passing the message along.  Also, I personally am a modder, therefore I also speak for myself.  I have also helped with support on some mods.  Maybe you should try it out sometime.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Guest

[kiwi1960]

36 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

Well, these people I have known for quite some time, and I take them for their word.  

Don't try to pull that.  You know exactly what I meant.  Good majority means a sizable one.  One that is large.  Proof = evidence.  Really, though, evidence is stronger than just proof, and what I have given you is evidence, therefore you have your proof.

They have spoken for themselves.  I'm just passing the message along.  Also, I personally am a modder, therefore I also speak for myself.  I have also helped with support on some mods.  Maybe you should try it out sometime.

Isn't that what got CKAN into all this trouble.... others speaking for modders and adding their mods to CKAN without permission??????I also know who you are, but I wasn't going to make this "personal".... as evidenced by your comment "Maybe you should try it out sometime"... I help where and when I think it will do most good. Now, if you continue to speak for most modders and claim they are approving of what CKAN does then you are only making the problem worse. Speak for yourself and no one else, otherwise this "battle" will never end, when all the modders who have spoken out are wanting is a fair deal. Your statements deny them that. If even ONE modder complained, then that is enough. Don't belittle his concerns by attempting to speak for the "good majority".

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Now, if you continue to speak for most modders and claim they are approving of what CKAN does then you are only making the problem worse.

Umm...I wasn't saying that at all.  I was saying the opposite.  If you want it clarified even more, then here you go:

I think CKAN needs to have a way of opting out of being forced on there by other people submitting their metadata.  In protest of this, I removed all of my mods from CKAN.

4 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Don't belittle his concerns by attempting to speak for the "good majority".

Ok, then I speak for myself.  I am tired of dealing with all of the problems CKAN brings.  I cannot recall a single model that I have spoken to that had a pleasant experience with CKAN.  To say that I am belittling his concerns is utter rubbish.  Now I'm going to continue with the constructive conversation of the other threads.  Good day, sir.

[kiwi1960]

4 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

Umm...I wasn't saying that at all.  I was saying the opposite.  If you want it clarified even more, then here you go:

I think CKAN needs to have a way of opting out of being forced on there by other people submitting their metadata.  In protest of this, I removed all of my mods from CKAN.

Ok, then I speak for myself.  I am tired of dealing with all of the problems CKAN brings.  I cannot recall a single model that I have spoken to that had a pleasant experience with CKAN.  To say that I am belittling his concerns is utter rubbish.  Now I'm going to continue with the constructive conversation of the other threads.  Good day, sir.

That is better, Speaking for oneself is ALWAYS the way to go. If you speak for others, then nothing gets resolved. Now that you have voiced YOUR concern about CKAN, what would you suggest is needed for the fix. Good day? Seriously... have a nice day friend Clifton.

 

BTW, we agree that mod authors should have the right to decide...

Edited June 25, 2016 by kiwi1960

[RoverDude]

FYI - I 100% support this pull request.

https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/commit/c6ec1e887c51fd7f88d1b5335b4ab2b5aecdabf8

[nightingale]

If it's what it takes to get 'er done, then I too would like to say I support the above pull request.

[politas]

Ok, I've had some sleep so now I can explain my actions. I created PR Allow foss delisting #1795 and have started behaving as though that change were accepted. As a result, I have delisted some mods on request. If there are any delisting requests that I haven't got to, I apologise for that. 

Given that ModuleManager is one of the mods I delisted, CKAN is effectively useless for most users now. Sarbian handed me the launch codes, and I fired the nuke.

So why did I do it? Mostly as a wake-up call to my fellow CKAN contributors. Insisting that CKAN is following FOSS ethos by keeping all FOSS mods available was not ultimately in the best interests of either the FOSS community or the KSP community. I have been thinking a lot about this over the last couple of days, and here's what I think is the fundamental problem: 

CKAN's policy was all about accessibility, and the rights of users. It was based on the assumption that all CKAN was doing was facilitating the installation of mods. Where it went wrong is in not taking into account the fact that in the minds of many CKAN users, CKAN also implicitly defines a support relationship, by linking to the "homepage" forum thread. We have attempted to disabuse users of that idea, but those efforts have been unsuccessful, and are likely to remain so, because people are people.

It is this expectation of support in the minds of users that has antagonised the modders, as far as I can see (combined with a perception of arrogance from CKAN team members and supporters). As such, I am going to act as though my PR #1795 has been accepted. Either we change the policy, or the CKAN team kick me out of the project.

[politas]

I would appreciate it if people would post simple agree/disagree comments on my PR Allow foss delisting #1795 , without adding any discussions of technical measures that might be implemented to ameliorate any issues.

[Brigadier]

21 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Something went wrong on your end if for others works just fine. As much as I was able to understand, error poped up when CKAN tried to populate grid with data from metafile list or something.

You should try to wipe out everything in CKAN folder except "download" folder, to ensure you don't have to download everything again. Also you should wipe out everything but SQUAD folder in gamedata folder, to ensure that you will be able to install mods again trough CKAN.

After that, run everything again. Just for safety reason, you should backup everything outside KSP folder (deleted files in CKAN and gamedata folder) before you try mentioned.

Thanks. I followed the process you described.  CKAN refused to acknowledge that the directories had been removed (which I thought it was capable of doing) so I selected everything for removal and applied the changes, which worked.  I filtered for "Cached" and tried to reinstall all of the mods but some have been denied for compatibility reasons (ScanSat and B9PartSwitch were the prominent ones).

Since the game is no longer compatible with my save, I'm going to stop playing until the mods are updated.

Exasperating.  I don't play KSP at a rate that allows be to advance meaningfully in the game and when the updates come out, I'm left waiting for the mod authors to update their additions before I can continue. I've restarted career mode several times since 1.0.5 was released last year and haven't got past Minmus as a result.  <Sigh> Here we go again.

[THX1138]

One CKAN v1.18.0 bug to report.

Windows 7, 1920x1080p

Some dialogue boxes are the wrong size for the contents:

 

Also, when trying to run ckan.exe from a place other than the KSP program folder, I think it should give a warning about where it should be run from. Instead it says something about an unhandled exception because it can find a readme file.

Edited June 26, 2016 by THX1138

[kcs123]

1 hour ago, Brigadier said:

Exasperating.  I don't play KSP at a rate that allows be to advance meaningfully in the game and when the updates come out, I'm left waiting for the mod authors to update their additions before I can continue. I've restarted career mode several times since 1.0.5 was released last year and haven't got past Minmus as a result.  <Sigh> Here we go again.

Similar thing for me too. I stick with previous version until majority of my favorite mods were updated. At the moment when most of them become stable enough another KSP update kicks in. It's been like that from 0.25, not only from 1.05. version.

Because of that and lack of free time, I was only able to enjoy in sandbox mode between updates.
Btw, if you are steam user, it is good idea to keep main steam install folder unmoded, copy everything outside of program files and mod that copy of game there. Once new version of KSP is released, stop updating mods as it might break your save game and just continue to play previous version of KSP at "last known working condition".

Once your favorite mods become available for latest KSP, copy again stock game outside of program files and mod new game there.

[sharpspoonful]

Concerning the issue CKAN and mod developers are having at current, I decided to make a post to the r/KerbalSpaceProgram thread, and I will post it here for the sake of the conversation:

Quote

After installing hundreds of mods in the past by hand, CKAN is a beautiful thing. For the most part, it highlights required dependencies and incompatibilities, eases install times from two hours to do it by hand to literally five minutes, and like /u/FUDefaultMods said, most program distros do this.

The problem stems from the authors of the metadata. If the the modders or their voluntary testers are not writing them, there is the high probability of it causing the aforementioned errors and bogus bug reports. CKAN devs need to take this into consideration, and really need to screen the submitted metadata better. Out of the current 1157 archived mods, there are only 193 compatible mods with 1.1.3, and that number only grows by approximately three to five mods a day.

Modders have a right to not have things be distributed outside of their own channels, but that needs to be in their licensing. Personally, I really think modders should embrace CKAN to assist their modding community and better control their distro avenues. Spaceport is great and all, but installing 10, 25, 50 (I currently have 78 mods and their dependencies!) or so mods by hand is neither pleasant nor is it efficient.

TL;DR: CKAN needs to better screen metadata, modders need to update their licensing if they don't want in or to write their own metadata, and it would be extremely helpful to the majority of the mod-happy community if they did so.

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by sharpspoonful