-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 341
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use Harmony bundled with AirlockPlus #7220
Conversation
@HebaruSan why does the rebuild not work here? Edit: it needs to be rebased, doesn't it? |
Yes. |
Thanks. |
Thank you. Running netkan locally works fine, the Harmony dll is installed correctly: The validation fails because it doesn't check the pre-release, and the last full release had no Harmony. But the regex looks good to me. @HebaruSan any objections? Else I would merge this now. |
@DasSkelett no objections. Also I'm not in charge of anything, you don't need my approval. :) |
Okay, just wanna ask if you spotted something that won't work, better know it before than fixing it afterwards :) |
@cake-pie this is merged, feel free to finally release the new version. |
This follows the preliminary (?) convention that seems to be the consensus in KSP-CKAN/NetKAN#7220
This follows the preliminary (?) convention that seems to be the consensus in KSP-CKAN/NetKAN#7220
Since #7131 and #7200 are clearly going nowhere fast due to continued inertia, this is intended to provide some kind of workable interim arrangement so as to stop holding up my releases.
For now I will be bundling Harmony for manual installs in a manner similar to what I laid out in #7131 (comment) which follows the generally established convention for bundling Module Manager.
In this compromise approach, CKAN can take that bundled dll and put it in the mod folder instead of GameData to prevent collision between multiple mods that bundle Harmony in this way. This is effectively the same as the "suggestion" in #7131 that all mods that require Harmony to include their "own" copy of it.
For reasons already discussed in #7131 this is not my preferred approach; I cannot guarantee that this won't run into problems down the line. #7200 is still the more robust and recommended solution.
Syntax check requested before merge.
For sample refer to prerelease version.