https://github.com/minetest/minetest/bl ... pi.txt#L84
release: Ignore this: Should only ever be set by ContentDB, as it is an internal ID used to track versions.
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/bl ... pi.txt#L84
release: Ignore this: Should only ever be set by ContentDB, as it is an internal ID used to track versions.
Ah great, so mods should use modname_release instead. Makes much more sense this way round.rubenwardy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 17:02https://github.com/minetest/minetest/bl ... pi.txt#L84
release: Ignore this: Should only ever be set by ContentDB, as it is an internal ID used to track versions.
I had it in there because CDB used it. I removed it in my latest release IIRCruns wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 14:53In the new ContentDB version, when I wanted to update my Juanchi Game:
Also for bikes and pillars mod.Code: Select all
Task Failed "Error validating package: /mods/lavastuff/mod.conf should not contain \'release\'
I solved, not problem. But...
So this release key in .conf files is get by ContentDB, an official extension.
Why not to use "release_cdb" better?
I mean, it is not documented not to use certain keys in mod.conf...
From https://content.minetest.net/help/featured/:
The featured packages is very new and they're still working on it, it has been and is being discussed in the Discord. Don't assume malice just because your mods haven't been featured yet.We are still deciding on a policy for choosing Featured packages.
I'm curious, why is the discussion happening on Discord, rather than IRC (which is kind of the middle ground for the community)? There is definitely a non-negligible part of the community that don't use Discord, but pretty much everyone is bridged to IRC, regardless of their stance regarding free software/open source.ROllerozxa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 13:53From https://content.minetest.net/help/featured/:The featured packages is very new and they're still working on it, it has been and is being discussed in the Discord. Don't assume malice just because your mods haven't been featured yet.We are still deciding on a policy for choosing Featured packages.
I have created an issue to discuss the policy on choosing Feature Packaged: https://github.com/minetest/contentdb/issues/321freshreplicant wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 17:17I'm curious, why is the discussion happening on Discord, rather than IRC (which is kind of the middle ground for the community)? There is definitely a non-negligible part of the community that don't use Discord, but pretty much everyone is bridged to IRC, regardless of their stance regarding free software/open source.
The featured section also came as a bit of a surprise on my last visit to ContentDB. Overall it's pretty welcome, but it would be great to hammer out a proper policy and strategy for how it should proceed, preferably somewhere anyone can participate or at least passively keep up, regardless of their stance toward a particular communication tool.
Helper mods and API mods should never be featured, as they're not applicable to users. Featured Packages is a very user-facing feature. The mods that use API mods can be featured, however, and Minetest will automatically install dependencies
If the author is still around and is responsive to bug reports, then this is fine - maintenance only is almost desirable. However, it's rare for a game to reach this state as none are really totally mature
Update: Problem solved! I had to change the name in "modpack.conf" to "techage_modpack"'Error validating package: Expected / to have technical name techage_modpack, instead has name techage'
No one is above criticism.runs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 01:54I would like an option to disable comments. Like on Youtube. I think it's the right thing to do. I mean completely disable, not censor. Why do I have to put up with riff-raff, compulsorily? I feel humiliated.
I'm sick of two year old kids saying nonsense about my wonderful mods and game, with zero judgement and a lot of nastiness. I am above it all.
I disagree. These aren't just comments, but reviews. I looked at a few of the comments on some of your packages, and the majority of thumbs down came from respected community members (not two year old kids, but intelligent, critical, and responsible people). They raised many good points that I have no reason to distrust, and based on some them, I would certainly not want me or any children I might have to be using that mod. I don't think mod creators should be allowed to hide legitimate and useful critiques of their mods just because the mod creator disagrees.runs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 01:54I would like an option to disable comments. Like on Youtube. I think it's the right thing to do. I mean completely disable, not censor. Why do I have to put up with riff-raff, compulsorily? I feel humiliated.
I'm sick of two year old kids saying nonsense about my wonderful mods and game, with zero judgement and a lot of nastiness. I am above it all.
I agree here. The only real criticism I can find in all of their released mods in CDB are comments for the petz mod criticizing the breeding method which is seemingly scientific (but it actually isn't, because that's simply not how it works in reality) but not fitting the overall appearance of the mod very well.
What can I do about that?'Error validating package: Expecting mod or modpack, found unknown at /LICENSES/ inside modpack'
Code: Select all
- .reuse/
- dep5
- LICENSES/
- CC-BY-SA-4.0.txt
- CC0-1.0.txt
- MIT.txt
- [...]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests