Oolite Bulletins

Moderator: Discussion on OXPs/OXZs split from the Website Redesign thread.

Diziet Sma wrote:

http://oolite.org/whatsnew/#sub4

if you have installed a replacement shipset OXP (i.e. an OXP which replaces the look of the default Oolite ships including the Cobra on the start screen) then you should install the Shipset Compatibility OXP from the 'Miscellaneous' section of the expansion pack manager.

Should say OXZ, not OXP.

Question about usage of OXP vs. OXZ: isn't OXZ just a packaging format of an Oolite eXpansion Pack (ok, plus a manifest file)? In that case I would in general continue to refer to expansions as OXPs. It might get confusing otherwise.

Given that the rest of the text specifically states: "install the Shipset Compatibility OXP from the 'Miscellaneous' section of the expansion pack manager", and that it's only available as an OXZ, I'd say the explicit use of "OXZ" is justified, in this case.

FWIW I am making a distinction between OXP and OXZ. My reasoning is that people (should by now) know that an OXZ is formatted to be handled by the Expansions Manager and that it is v1.80-friendly. An OXP is the old format that needs to be manually placed in AddOns, and is probably pre-v1.80, and therefore is unlikely to be fully up to date or up to speed with all the new features.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Given that the rest of the text specifically states: "install the Shipset Compatibility OXP from the 'Miscellaneous' section of the expansion pack manager", and that it's only available as an OXZ, I'd say the explicit use of "OXZ" is justified, in this case.

Probably. How would we do it in the general case though? I think it had merit to think about a definition that is accepted so that not everyone makes up his own and confuses people who are not so intimately familiar with the whole concept.

What I've been trying to do is use OXP and OXZ as names for the formats (note that OXPs can and should include a manifest.plist, it's just not a requirement of the format) and move to using "expansions" or "expansion packs" in the documentation. There are a number of cases - like that sentence - where I wasn't sufficiently consistent about it, though.

cim wrote:

What I've been trying to do is use OXP and OXZ as names for the formats (note that OXPs can and should include a manifest.plist, it's just not a requirement of the format) and move to using "expansions" or "expansion packs" in the documentation. There are a number of cases - like that sentence - where I wasn't sufficiently consistent about it, though.

Makes sense, but it kind of opens a new chapter I think. Before OXZs, OXP was the same as expansion or expansion pack (hence the acronym, see also [wiki]OXP[/wiki]: "An OXP (Oolite eXpansion Pack) is an enhancement to the game Oolite"). That's why we have an OXP List, OXP development guidelines etc.

Trying to redefine OXP as just a format for expansion packs could seem to create quite some confusion IMHO.

maik wrote:

cim wrote:

What I've been trying to do is use OXP and OXZ as names for the formats (note that OXPs can and should include a manifest.plist, it's just not a requirement of the format) and move to using "expansions" or "expansion packs" in the documentation. There are a number of cases - like that sentence - where I wasn't sufficiently consistent about it, though.

Makes sense, but it kind of opens a new chapter I think. Before OXZs, OXP was the same as expansion or expansion pack (hence the acronym, see also [wiki]OXP[/wiki]: "An OXP (Oolite eXpansion Pack) is an enhancement to the game Oolite"). That's why we have an OXP List, OXP development guidelines etc.

As I think on this I just keep coming back to that. Regardless of what filename extension or format is used they are still OXPs for the very reason maik stated. It may be in a new format but it's still an Oolite eXpansion Pack. (Accessed through the Expansion Pack Manager no less) Format aside, the acronym still means the same thing and still accurately describes what they are.

- Neelix

cim wrote:

(note that OXPs can and should include a manifest.plist, it's just not a requirement of the format)

I'm curious as to why they 'should', and what the benefits/advantages to doing so would be?

It means that they can depend on and/or conflict with other expansions, and if it's an OXP that's also distributed in OXZ format, it means that if you install both at once (or even just get confused and unzip the OXP twice) Oolite will notice and warn you.

That does indeed sound like a good thing.. thanks.