Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
Turns out you're not that confused after all! :) Yes, this is the exact solution I would suggest to you myself - it will tell If you ever find yourself unsure whether the dependency pattern is properly formatted, until I finish the proper documentation on the project with some useful interactive elements for cases like this one, you can manually check it against this regex (for example, on regex101): ^\s*(?<id>[^@{(#]+)(@(?<versionRange>[^@{(#]*))?(?:\((?<type>[^@{(#]*)\))?(?<aliases>(?:\{[^:=]+(?:=|:)[^}]*\})+)?(?<ignore>#\(ignore(?::(?<ignoredPlatforms>[^)]*))?\))?\s*$ Also, since one of So, "breaks": {
"sodium": "*"
}, will be treated as "incompatible," in Modrinth terms, just as usual, and "breaks": {
"sodium": ["0.4.11+build.25", "0.4.11+build.26"]
}, will be treated as "conflicting" (and Modrinth doesn't have that, so this entry won't be propagated to Modrinth at all). How does that sound? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have a speciffic old sodium version marked as breaking in my mod.json, and mc-publish takes that and marks complete sodium as incomplatible on modrinth.
how can I tell mc-publish to ignore the sodium dependency, I saw there is a syntax for it in the readme, but I'm a bit confused.
my dependency:
would that the right thing to add, to ignore it?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions