LDB on wowace for relationships (points!)

[Tekkub]

LS and CBH are a double-special case because they need to be embedded for every lib that uses them, but only once per addon to avoid lots of undue loading. So if every addon that uses them has a standalone, that standalone should include them, and they don't need to be in the addon. If a lib doesn't have a standalone, and the addon can't OptDep a lib that does, then they need to be embedded in the addon. LS is fairly easy to come by, but CBH isn't usually.

[Elkano]

But still both do have a standalone version without causing any harm. So I don't see any problems with providing standalone...

[Tekkub]

As I told orion... I'm stubborn and this is the design I've chosen and lived with for well over a year (two?) now. I'm not interested in what I would consider a de-evolution of my code just because ace's system forced it (which it doesn't really, just use "tools-used" and nothing else has to change from how people were doing it before).

[Tristanian]

Personally, I partially agree with Orion (minus the "abusively obscene" part and removing support) and will keep the LDB embed straight to the .toc. There is really very little reason to try and invert "workarounds" for the packager, so that both lib and nolib packages will work as expected, not to mention cumbersome. I also don't see the problem with LS and CBH getting embedded via the .pkgmeta. It's been like that since hrm ages ?

[Arrowmaster]

If somebody is only using LibStub, CBH, and LDB in their addon then they should just disable nolibs instead of hard-embedding. LibStub and CBH should never be hard-embedded on WoWAce/CurseForge repos (but there are still a lot of old libraries that do and should be fixed if they weren't mostly dead).

[sylvanaar]

I think you deserve credit for your work Tek, but I think you need to follow the rules and work within the system just like the rest of us if you want *reward points*.

Both LibStub and CBH have standalones. They are no longer "special snowflakes", and can be embedded and optdeped just like any other library. I think LDB is the only library that exists that needs hard embedding.

[Xinhuan]

Originally Posted by sylvanaar

I think you deserve credit for your work Tek, but I think you need to follow the rules and work within the system just like the rest of us if you want *reward points*.

Both LibStub and CBH have standalones. They are no longer "special snowflakes", and can be embedded and optdeped just like any other library. I think LDB is the only library that exists that needs hard embedding.

Seconded.

[Tekkub]

What rules? Because the system is designed around one use doesn't make that use a rule you know. Ace has always been about encouraging good code, not about enforcing specific designs.

[Phanx]

Originally Posted by OrionShock

Because of this im removing LDB support from my addons, the code to use LDB if precent will remain and become entirely optional, however im removing the lib entirely from my project.

How petty and obnoxious. Yes, making life difficult for the thousands upon thousands of addon users who don't know that libraries even exist, let alone how to manage a standalone library setup (which everyone around here seems to think is horrible and useless and evil nowadays anyway), just because you disagree with one library author's view on how his library should be distributed is really a great way to prove your point.

Also, unless I misunderstand how the point system works, how is he "abusing" anything? Are different amounts of points given depending on whether a library is listed as an "external/embed" or a "tool used"?

[Arrowmaster]

"tools-used" was added because Ackis was including data-tools as an embedded library in ARL so that data-tools would get reward points since he heavily used it. It is the exact same thing as an embedded library as far as points go but it does not cause the nolib mode of the Curse Client to try and install a standalone, which is the problem Ackis caused.

Hard embedding should never be done because external code not under the control of the addon author should not be in the addons repo. This is even worse for LDB because LDB does not have any copyright notice anywhere so every addon that is hard embedding LDB without adding an exception for it to its own license information is technically violating copyright. I'm sure Tekkub doesn't want LDB under GPL but a GPL addon hard embedding it with an exception being listed is technically illegally declaring that it is under the GPL. The same could be said for addons that reference it as an external too but in that case the repo does show evidence that the file comes from somewhere else.

The "license-output: LICENSE.txt" .pkgmeta feature of the repos should probably be changed to give the license of the addon and all embedded libraries automatically when used, but that still wouldn't even help in a hard-embedded situation.

If Tekkub does not want there to be a standalone version of LDB then he should tell authors to disable nolib zips for their addons using "enable-nolib-creation: no" not by encouraging hard embedding of the library.

I support the idea of allowing libraries to be specified as not having standalone versions and always being included in nolib zips because of LibStub and CallbackHandler, but since I have been fighting for that since WoWAce moved to the CurseForge system and there has been no sign of anybody with the power to make that change supporting the idea so I see it as a lost cause.