Skip to content
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

Suggestion: Resourcepack Update Checker #77

Open
ghost opened this issue Jul 30, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Suggestion: Resourcepack Update Checker #77

ghost opened this issue Jul 30, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jul 30, 2018

I ran this suggestion through Drullkus, this is what we came to the conclusion of;

In pack.mcmeta, you'd be able to provide a link to an external .json file somewhere on the web (e.g; github) that stores the recommended version and the latest version of the pack.

In pack.mcmeta, you should also provide the resourcepack's version itself, to be able to compare it to the external .json's

Thoughts?

@Drullkus
Copy link
Member

Specification:

Root compound
├─ pack: Vanilla. For data about the resourcepack.
└─ ctm: CTM-specific data
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ├─ version: String version. Should follow semantic notation of major.minor.build
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ └─ update_json: URL to external json file. Should probably mimic Forge's json format.

{
  "pack": {
    "pack_format": 2,
    "description": "testing pack for AO"
  },
  "ctm": {
    "version": "1.4.3",
    "update_json": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TeamTwilight/twilightforest/1.12.x/update.json"
  }
}

@tterrag1098
Copy link
Member

Seems very out of scope for this project, though I could see it being useful in another mod.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Aug 1, 2018

I picked this mod to make this suggestion because it's one of the two or three mods I see resourcepackers using a lot.

Making the updater it's own mod would flop almost straight out of the gate, rip.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants