1025 replies to this topic

[Lollorian]

The one-man-army ofcourse - Leonardo Watson

But right now, until someone picks up the reins... no one (damn I'm like lemme take a month's break and I'll be back lololol and then all this happens )

[Turambar]

That's not good news...
I'm afraid to become he-who-borked-the-last-release-of-BWP-in-one-week

anyway, I've written to him... I hope he will leave us some hints about how to preserve his work despite some mods needing quite radical changes

Edited by Turambar, 22 February 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[Sasha Al'Therin]

Not sure if this should be posted here or not seeing as there is no current maintainer.

I think tho that this issue is part of the BiG World Fixpack.

Spoiler

processing fixes for "aurora"

patching file `aurora\lib\t-arecre.tpa'
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to aurora\lib\t-arecre.tpa.rej
patching file `aurora\lib\t-goblin.tpa'
patching file `aurora\lib\t-kobold.tpa'
Hunk #1 succeeded at 92 (offset 27 lines).
Hunk #2 FAILED at 142.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to aurora\lib\t-kobold.tpa.rej

copying files ...
BiG World Fixpack\aurora\_copy\aurora-v5a-changelog.txt
BiG World Fixpack\aurora\_copy\itm\agpotn04.itm
BiG World Fixpack\aurora\_copy\itm\agpotn06.itm
BiG World Fixpack\aurora\_copy\itm\agsw1h05.itm
4 File(s) copied

this patch effort is done before any installing gets done. Its supposed to replace a few files in the Aurora mod prior to installation. However it's choking up on something.

The original patch as provided by Miloch was an overwrite of aurora's content prior to aurora being installed.
Miloch's instructions:

After extracting Aurora's Shoes v5 to your game folder, extract this patch as well, overwriting the existing files.

If the intent of the BiG World Fixpack is to prevent people from applying mod author supplied patches (which I thought its intent was to smooth out needed quirks between mods that weren't being maintained) then why not just overwrite the files? patching them and asking for possible trouble is pointless when its not patching an already installed file.

That's my 2 cents

[prowler]

What about a making a special patch for last version of Fixpack?
At least we need to remove outdated fixes. A simple path - special*.bat file. It will be extract into Fixpack folder. Then *.bat file simply remove outdated fixes. And then we can run Fixpack safely.
Folks what do you think about that?

[William Imm]

If you want me to, I can maintain my own branch of fixpack.

[prowler]

Wow! Any help would be super Do you have new fixes or...you have a better solution as programmer (not bat file)?
At the moment there are 2 issues with fixpack:
1. Some outdated files from DSotSC (need to be deleted)
2. Some outdated files from Aurora (need to be deleted)

[prowler]

http://www.shsforums...ncer-vs-dsotsc/
Suggested fix for DsotSC & Bp Banacer

[Lollorian]

There are some more fixes in Suslik's thread btw Cheers for a revived BWPFixpack effort

[Wisp]

The BWP Fixpack generates plenty of "hunks FAILED" right now. Does anyone know here if that is dangerous? At first, I thought the word was used when the patches detected that no patching was necessary, hence the FAIL messages would be harmless, but it seems to say "hunk ignored" also O_O it makes the FAIL messages very scary...

"Hunk FAILED" means the patch is outdated and no longer matches that part of the mod. "Hunk ignored" in this context probably just means that the patch has already been applied by the mod maintainer. Neither is "dangerous."

[William Imm]

Also, a "reversed (or previously applied patch" means that the patch is already applied.

(why is it that only Wisp and I understand patch very well? To my credit, it was because I helped with the Linux From Scratch project, which used patches like in the BWP Fixpack.)

[Sasha Al'Therin]

why is it that only Wisp and I understand patch very well?

There are others of us who understand what it does. I for one don't particularly agree with its use in all cases. Sometimes its easier to just go ahead and overwrite the file, especially if it is before mod installation and it is one of the given mod's files. If it is after mod installation, then using a tp2 COPY/PATCH_IF combination would be preferred.

I've seen some BWP patches that attempt to correct a tp2. It would be better for the BWP in this case to let the mod install and check the output file(s) are correct via COPY & PATCH_IF than trying to change the tp2. especially since 90% of reported issues are AFTER mod installation and 90% of the suggested patches are tp2 variants for AFTER mod installation.

but that's my opinion....

[Wisp]

Sometimes its easier to just go ahead and overwrite the file, especially if it is before mod installation and it is one of the given mod's files.

Now that is dangerous. Instead of harmless failed hunks you have mod files being overwritten by outdated versions, causing installation failures and other bugs.

[Sasha Al'Therin]

Sometimes its easier to just go ahead and overwrite the file, especially if it is before mod installation and it is one of the given mod's files.

Now that is dangerous. Instead of harmless failed hunks you have mod files being overwritten by outdated versions, causing installation failures and other bugs.

You take that out of context sir...
.patch is nothing more than an overwrite in and of itself. It is not a true patch. It does not examine the file and patch if things are truly incorrect. it just runs and if it finds a match to the old it replaces it with the new, even a newly corrected version of the file matches. It only fails if it can't find a match. Therefore, it is just as dangerous. Especially since your patches are a combination of overwrites and the 'patch'. Dsotsc may fail at the patches but it still gets 3 new good files overwritten by the patch process. There is reason to be concerned cause you may have harmless failed hunks but you still have mod files being overwritten by outdated versions. If you had read further, I suggested changing it to a tp2 format that is done AFTER the mod is installed, thus avoiding any issues with the pre-patching that is currently going on. But you got hung up on one line and didn't bother to understand the whole thing.

And to quote you cause I think it is valid here as well

Better yet, can this homebrew stuff and use standard WeiDU functions.

[Wisp]

You take that out of context sir...
.patch is nothing more than an overwrite in and of itself. It is not a true patch. It does not examine the file and patch if things are truly incorrect. it just runs and if it finds a match to the old it replaces it with the new, even a newly corrected version of the file matches. It only fails if it can't find a match. Therefore, it is just as dangerous.

Patch: may screw up on an already fixed mod.
Overwrite: will screw up on an already fixed mod.

There is a world of difference between a patch file and an overwrite.

If you had read further, I suggested changing it to a tp2 format that is done AFTER the mod is installed, thus avoiding any issues with the pre-patching that is currently going on. But you got hung up on one line and didn't bother to understand the whole thing.

I understand just fine. TP2 post-processing is not necessarily a generally applicable method. The state of the game depends on the full list of hitherto installed mods (we assume a fixed order), as well as on any intra-mod randomness. Instead of a simple "change x to y here" (patching), you may need to account for a lot of combinatorial possibilities. You also have problems with propagation and magnification. A small bug in mod A is a single, small bug before mod A is installed, but it may be many, many bugs or a large bug after the mod has been installed. These many and/or large bugs need not be easy to fix. Patching the mod before it is installed is very often easier and cleaner, not to mention it is a generally applicable method.

And this discussion completely devoid of practical concerns, like how the BWP people may know how to use diff and patch, but not how to program in some poorly constructed, syntactical monster of a niche language.

Edited by Wisp, 02 May 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[Sasha Al'Therin]

You stay in your rut and I'll stay in mine.

Work for you?

I'll go back to modding and leave you to screw up our mods.

[Leonardo Watson]

There is no need to cobble any new fixpack together. As I stated some time ago, I am willing to maintain the fixpack, if there are new fixes.
Unfortunatelly due to continuing problems with the upload function at SHS I am not able to upload any new version. But at least in this topic there are no new fixes, aren't there?

I warn against creating any new kind of fixpack. After endless discussions about manipulating another modder's mod about five years ago here at SHS the procedure of patching was the only one that was agreed from all modders from various forums. Don't try to change this method. You cannot imagine what a storm of indignation you can provoke if you change mods in any other way.

[Sasha Al'Therin]

I warn against creating any new kind of fixpack. After endless discussions about manipulating another modder's mod about five years ago here at SHS the procedure of patching was the only one that was agreed from all modders from various forums. Don't try to change this method. You cannot imagine what a storm of indignation you can provoke if you change mods in any other way.

I was not here 5 years ago (if i was I wasn't modding then). I think they meant patch AFTER their mod was installed as in patch the affected files in game and not patch their mod content. I personally don't want my packaged products modified. If it gets screwed with then I can't support it. Then my mod gets a bad wrap for having problems etc that may not actually exist in the real thing. You can however play with the files AFTER they are installed all you want, cause that is a risk all modders must take when releasing their work. This is why we have weidu.log and the --change-log features.

I'm just glad that 90% of my work will never be affected by the BWP Fixpack. And the small % that is, is incorporated into larger projects with its own people to voice how its dealt with.

That's how I feel about it. If you don't agree, so be it.

[Leonardo Watson]

They meant explicitly not to offer any files that changes their mod content. From the BWP PDF:

The required patches are inserted only on your computer. In order to not infringe on any copyrights, BWP includes no modified mods, only instructions on how to install the mod as well as complete solution proposals (the patches and the batch files). If you alter the mods yourself in the privacy of your own home, it is solely by and for yourself and completely legitimate.

In the beginning the BWP was just before being banned because of some folks had violated these rules.