I get that its not allowed anymore to write editor extensions that allow any sort of package discoverability. The whole issue is that its entirely unclear what is and is not allowed when it comes to using the package manager for package resolution but feeding it from outside the editor. I would concur somewhat, though there might be legal issues for the users of said software. (this is what openupm-cli does already, so I'm assuming this is still ok?)Ī standalone application that performs the complete package resolution process outside of the Unity Editor and puts the resulting packages either directly in Assets/Packages or leverages manifest.json again pointing it at a local folder using file:// as the version string (this would then completely cut out the Unity Editor from the distribution portion as it is not even leveraged as a downloading mechanism in this case)Ĭlick to expand.On the matter of CI systems: They need a valid license in order to work. I'd like some clarification on that point as it seems to me that according to these guidelines the following two scenarios are still possible:Ī standalone application that does not leverage the Unity Editor but just modifies the manifest.json file leaving the Unity Editor to resolve packages, since these packages are not distributed through the Unity official channels they do not have to conform to the Package Guidelines right?. the downloading of packages that are entered in manifest.json) count as distribution? Or does using the Unity Editors Package resolution features (i.e. So if I were to write an external script (such as openupm does it) that does not fall under the package guidelines. Even kids using Roblox Studio have access to multiple, unrestricted package manager solutions.Ĭlick to expand.But the Package Guidelines only apply to packages and only those that are distributed via the standard channels anyway as I understand it? There is no reason for wrapping UPM in legalese, period. I know UPM is unavoidable for Unity internal packages and workarounds going forward but, those aside, I don't want to touch the Asset Store or any "Unity authorized channels" ever again for anything developed by a third party. unitypackage or workarounds like private git/verdaccio access then at least devs can finally self host older versions, etc, and provide an even better experience than we have now via the crappy antiquated insufficient Asset Store. I hope every asset developer goes the route of Odin Inspector offering direct purchase/subscriptions. Unity is wrong here, and I'm sure they don't appreciate my frustrated tone but I don't care, they're still wrong. Idk what the point was of soliciting concerns if the overwhelming chorus of "this sucks and is braindead stupid, please revert" is ignored.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |