Oolite Bulletins

I created a new page, [wiki]OXP Distribution[/wiki], which collects best practices for packaging and distributing OXPs. Consider it a starting point with my personal view on best practices and add to or correct it . It is linked to from the [wiki]OXP howto[/wiki] page.

I find it interesting that you don't recommend including the version number in the name of the .oxp folder. While I can definitely see your point about it making sure that people can't mistakenly have multiple instances of the same oxp in the AddOns folder, I would have thought that having the version number would be beneficial, in that it makes it easier to see when an oxp is out of date and a new version is available. I would have thought that old versions of oxps would be more of a problem than multiple instances, and having the version number in the folder name would make it easier to debug...
But everything else makes sense to me!

Mauiby de Fug wrote:

I find it interesting that you don't recommend including the version number in the name of the .oxp folder.

I agree. It's much easier to see if there's an update with just a cursory look at the add-ons folder than having to check the readme files in each individual folder.

Mauiby de Fug wrote:

I find it interesting that you don't recommend including the version number in the name of the .oxp folder. While I can definitely see your point about it making sure that people can't mistakenly have multiple instances of the same oxp in the AddOns folder, I would have thought that having the version number would be beneficial, in that it makes it easier to see when an oxp is out of date and a new version is available. I would have thought that old versions of oxps would be more of a problem than multiple instances, and having the version number in the folder name would make it easier to debug...
But everything else makes sense to me!

That is indeed the one point that I'm not even sure about myself. I tend to think that duplicate OXPs can cause more problems than outdated ones. Other opinions?

For what it's worth I have been stating version number at the .oxp folder level for my recent updates and releases, for the reason stated above...at a glance users can see what version they have installed.

Personally, I like to see oxp version numbers in the Latest.log... I've never had a problem with duplication.

I think the opinions in this are to different to give an advise. Maybe only list the benefits of both?.

Personally I want version numbers in the name. Or better: I hate oxps without version numbers and add them manually when they are missing. Main reason is that you often have no clue about the version without version number in the name. Specially with ship oxps were there is no script that might bear a version number. e.g. look at griff's work. The only clue is often the modification date. And when I changed a character in the oxp, even that clue is gone.
And on the mac you generally can't look inside the oxp to find files with version info. For me that was reason to include always a 'info.plist'. That is a mac-only file that makes -among others- that when asking file info from the finder, you get the version number that way. And other systems can just read this file as text. But that exceeds packaging info.
On the mac, also the info inside the 'requires.plist' is visible in the info-box when asking file info from the finder.

Probably the page can use some additional info per operating system. e.g. On the mac you can make very easy a zip file by selecting a folder and that select "make archive" from the menu. But, as this is primarily mend for mac compatible archives, there are a lot additional files added that are not visible to the mac user but confuses others. On the mac it is better to use a separate zip program and look for a setting with 'window compatible' archives.

I assume similar advises can be given for other os also.

Thinking about the various people who come here for help and post their log files for us, there are a fair few who are running outdated oxps, which if given a version number we can easily identify and point this out to them (even if their problem was not caused by this), whereas I don't really think we see many people with duplicate oxps...

Other things we see are one oxp accidentally dropped inside another, although of course we can't do anything about that with regards to file names!

Regarding the point of version numbers: Wouldn't it be even easier to see if an OXP is outdated if the release date was appended? That way you could easily compare against the OXP List. For finding out the latest version number, you always have to look it up either on the wiki, or in the readme/release notes. And sometimes neither exists.

If you're going that way, next we'll be discussing an OXP installer/updater... Last time I heard, it was either un-doable or not in anyone's priorities, I don't recall which.

Cmdr. Maegil wrote:

If you're going that way, next we'll be discussing an OXP installer/updater... Last time I heard, it was either un-doable or not in anyone's priorities, I don't recall which.

The way I'm going is towards a manual solution that makes it easier then the current one to find out if OXPs are outdated or not.

Maik, I have had a think about our discussion in PMs. It really doesn't matter whether people use dates or version numbers. Both will indicate to the user if the OXP is more recent than the one they have. So the recommendation could be to use one of them. I would also suggest that the enclosing zip or rar file has the same name as the OXP itself, including version number or date. Makes it easier to navigate all the OXP's on my HD.

Hmm. Why does it not matter? If I see the release date, I can quickly compare with the OXP List. If I see the version number, I have to go to the OXP's particular wiki page or BB thread to find out what the current version is.

This might not matter for a single OXP, but if you quickly want to go through your list, I think that having to compare against only one page is more efficient.

What was it you had in mind when you said it doesn't matter?

Eric Walch wrote:

On the mac you can make very easy a zip file by selecting a folder and that select "make archive" from the menu. But, as this is primarily mend for mac compatible archives, there are a lot additional files added that are not visible to the mac user but confuses others. On the mac it is better to use a separate zip program and look for a setting with 'window compatible' archives.

Which zip program do you recommend?

I extended the [wiki]OXP Distribution[/wiki] page with information on announcements and updating and revised the information on versioning. Please continue to provide feedback.