'See all versions' command was removed

Thank you for fixing what Unity Technologies aren't willing to fix!

 

Just to prove that this was a terrible decision. Here's a simple use-case example:

• We want to use Amplify Imposters to improve the performance of our project
• We have it in and working
• Welp, we want to use Decals as well, but they are only compatible with URP 12+
• Okay, let's add Decals
• Woops, turns out that Imposters don't work with URP 12 yet
• Spends time figuring out that a 3rd party decal system works just fine with some tweaking
• Let's revert to URP 11 so we can have decals and imposters
• Oh... can't do that so now we're stuck with one or the other unless we use a COMMUNITY PATCH to fix the issue

If this forum isn't enough evidence that it was a bad move then I don't know what is.

 

The fact that I can't actually install the latest Oculus XR Plugin version which has support for the Quest Pro unless I edit the manifest.json is confusing to me. There is an "Enable Pre-release Packages" box but for some reason I still have no access to 3.2.2 unless I manually alter the json file. Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth for how the Package Manager functions in general.

 

The truth is, the package manager is not important for Unity Technologies- it simply isn't as appealing as, say, hair shaders. Stay tuned for the next graphical tech demo, though! Shareholders are going to LOVE those next-gen lions!

 

Funny enough, I am having the same issue with OpenXR. Shows me at 1.4.6 instead of the newest version 1.6.0.

 

Sadly this doesn't always work.

I wanted to install URP 12.1.7

 

T.T Unityyyyy pls fix!

 

STUPID UNITY!!!!

 

I noticed for my own scoped registry of packages, the Package Manager window shows all my versions, and even lets me "update" to older versions.

Why not have this level of support for Unity-built/engine packages?


P.S. - This screenshot is shown from Unity 2023.1.0a25, one of the newest available alpha versions of Unity, which should calm concerns of this feature being removed (at least for scoped registries).

 

I just installed Cinemachine 2.9.5 and it's buggy. I have missing scripts, after I close and reopen a prefab with a VirtualCamera. Now I want to downgrade to 2.9.4. But it's almost impossible.

 

I want to make it clear that this was a bad decision!
My experience, was realizing that I was using a package that was buggy believing it was the latest, but in fact, it just didn't show any version other than the released one.
Unity is not software for hobbyists. I understand that everyone starts their career or enthusiast as an amateur, but that while that's natural, not everyone ventures into Unity and lives to tell the tale.
What I mean by that is that this decision not to show the other versions of packages will not help anyone, as much as it helps some to avoid problems with recent packages that were not released for the version of Unity that may be using it, it will disturb others who simply have a buggy package and will not be able to resolve it except on a tweak basis. That is, it took the difficulty/solution out of the hands of some to put it out of others. It's the same thing as plugging a hole by digging another.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHRG!!!

Maybe it's time for them to admit their mistake instead of defending this appalling "feature"?
Really feels like a blatant expression of mistrust towards us, the users.

At least expose it somewhere as an 'advanced setting'.

 

@xoofx @JoshPeterson ping 2 years later.

I understand there is no news?

 

But doesn't that go against the philosophy of packages? I mean, when UPM was born, Unity talked about the benefits it was going to bring as decoupling features in packages that can have their own release cycle independent of the editor to not force to have to update the editor for a simple bug fix.

With what you say, it's going backwards, isn't it?

 

Agreed, I'm kind of confused.

--- --- ---

And regarding this thread, we just want to see all versions of a package haha. I don't think that's a big engineering ask since the engine already had it functioning before (and still does for custom scoped registries!)

 

I don't understand.... I want to make a project using A* Pathfinding Project which I purchased from the asset store. It won't work with the latest version (1.0.0-pre.65) of Entities Graphics because they introduced some changes that broke it and the guy who made A* Pathfinding Project is on vacation for a month and can't fix it to work with the latest version. So I need to install the old 1.0.0-pre.44 of Entities Graphics... but there is no option to download and install that.

So.... the solution is... to pound sand?

 

Are you saying you can't install package by name and version?

https://docs.unity3d.com/2021.2/Documentation/Manual/upm-ui-quick.html

 

Ah thanks, that worked! It wasn't very intuitive, but it got the job done.

 

That is a bit of a ridiculous decision because some things don't work with some version.

A very good example of this:

Latest version of Unity 2021.3 (So the latest LTS version) -> Only has Netcode for GameObjects 1.3.1, and Netcode 1.4.0 does not appear and cannot be installed.

Unity Relay Services -> Does not work with Netcode 1.3.1, only works with Netcode 1.4.0. We really need a way to be able to update to the version we want. Because even unity's own services don't work with the "stable" version.

So basically Unity relay services doesn't work with the latest LTS version at the moment... You need to be in Unity 2022 or "hack" the LTS version to install the package in a way Unity don't want you to install.

 

Not to detract from your point but I think that case is actually valid, because Netcode 1.3.1 might be the newest version of that package that supports Unity 2021.3. You would need to use a newer Unity version to support Netcode 1.4.0+. Perhaps this basically means Unity Relay Services is fairly new, and depends on newer engine features. Probably by the time Unity 2022.3 LTS comes out, it'll be supported though. You probably already know this, but LTS typically lags behind in new features, in favor of stability, as a tradeoff.

(So if Unity let you update to Netcode 1.4.0, it might just flat out not work with Unity 2021.3 because it needs newer engine features than 2021.3 supports! So your project would probably not compile I'm guessing)


But I still agree with your point -- say if we need to choose a specific version (that is supported by Unity 2021.3), say you needed to (for whatever reason) needed to go back to Netcode 1.2.0. There's no built-in way in the Unity editor's package manager window to choose that. You'd have to know to edit your Packages/manifest.json manually and look up all the versions of the package you're interested in (such as by Googling the package docs for it).

A lot of manual work that isn't needed..

 

You only needed to read back the third post above yours.

https://docs.unity3d.com/2021.2/Documentation/Manual/upm-ui-quick.html

 

Relay Service works in Unity 2020 with Netcode 1.4. So there is no reason why it shoudnt work in 2021.

Not arguing that its impossible, still it's a downgrade in terms of UI/UX, compared to Unity 2020.

I use 2020 to make my unity assets, and it's great because i can quickly swap netcode version to test the different versions to make sure the users who download the asset don't have issues no matter if they use 1.3, or 1.4, or other...

But this means if I ever upgrade to Unity 2021, I won't be able to do that easily anymore... Big downgrade from Unity. That's not the direction they should take.

 

Ahh that's weird... thanks for explaining.

 

Yikes. Just updated to 2022 and encountered a bug with the Localization package when building for iOS. A quick Google shows me that it's fixed in a newer version, but then I discover that my Package Manager won't let me upgrade. Cue reading this entire thread and spending 20 mins messing around with something that should have just happened automatically during the project update.

Package Manager folks: you've made the wrong call on this one. As many other commentators have mentioned, UPM is supposed to make situations like mine easier. Don't put up artificial roadblocks for me to get the files I need. Your audience are professionals, and they don't need handholding like this.

Thanks,

Ben

 

I just had to upgrade Text Mesh Pro, which had bugs that were recently patched that were present well before the writing of this post, and which have no projected timeline to be reintegrated into an LTS, by manually editing package json.

The spirit of this hasn't lived up to reality.

 

Very right purpose, very wrong design.
If you want to ensure the quality of the package, increase the quality and tell users how to use it to get the same high-quality results. Recommended dependency versions are a good place to display this information. But if you force the choice of version (or make it difficult to choose the version), it means that all users must passively accept the new version.

To be honest, at present, Unity-related packages have some changes every time they are updated (such as URP, an increasingly critical package), although these changes can be used directly in Unity. But when users use third-party libraries, these changes force users to update all content and fix errors caused by all changes. Although it would have been possible to directly lower the version.

From a technician's point of view, the original design allows users to have a convenient and intuitive feeling of control, but now it is directly restricted.

I know the quality of packages has improved, but these improvements have come more from the creators of the package than an external force, or a presentation interface.

And Unity, you could not changed anything, but added some prompt information, but you force the operation like this, and i can't even see the old version number. I don't understand.

@xoofx

 

Thanks forestrf!
@xoofx i hate this. It makes working on XR stuff terrible. One of Unity's advantages is how flexible it is and this takes away from that.

 

After lots of confusion and googling around as to why I can't see the current packages (or *any* packages apart from the version it seemed to randomly select), I finally found out that somehow, this is the desired behaviour? Phew.

When I force a package to a certain version via package.json and then check the package manager, it tells me that an older version is "recommended". That's how I'd imagine that this functionality could work: It shows all versions, defaults to a recommended one (and tells you why it is recommended, i.e. "we tested this version in this editor"), but allows you to see and select other versions too.

The way it is now it's just very confusing. You find out that there are docs for a higher version, but it's not showing up in the package manager, and you wonder why.

And I'm a bit confused as to why the highest version of the OpenXR plugin I can see in Unity 2021.3.5f1 is 1.4.2. In the dropdown on https://docs.unity3d.com/Packages/com.unity.xr.openxr@1.8/changelog/CHANGELOG.html, all versions including 1.8 are for "2020.3.0b14+".

 

It was like that before, everyone was whining that incompatible packages were trashing their projects because people are dumb and don't know what they are doing.
BTW, I agree with you, it should be like that, too bad we can't have good things, because we democratized game development...

 

Just found this thread after wondering where the hell my packages went.

This is the worst kind of 'perfect world' policy. In reality I often have to pick and choose specific package versions for a project to be stable, especially when there's interoperability between packages. Eg your latest alembic package has bugs that require me to use an earlier version and the latest version of your recorder package doesn't work with that alembic version. So I downgrade both, problem solved.

Even the latest and greatest packages will always have bugs and quirks. All you're doing is removing one convenient way of dealing with that inevitability.

If you've got to put it behind an 'advanced' option with a scary 'we're not liable' warning that's fine.

 

What if the "stable" version that overrides the last version turns out to not be as stable as it should be because Unity is run by humans who are capable of mistakes? What if I want to revert to the last minor version before something breaks?

 

All I can say, is I am thankful someone created a github repository to bypass this short sighted decision by Unity.

 

Except that TextMeshPro preview versions tend to be the only ones that ever work.

 

Except it's not the opposite. It has decreased the quality of the packages. Supposed stable packages often have issues that are only solved in the preview versions.

 

Well, what do you know? Using TMP 3.2.0-pre.6 instead of stable 3.0.6 resolved all my issues.

 

This is just insane. I wanted to use the new Input System in a project of mine, but the Package Manager only allows me to install version 1.7, which has a bug in it that completely disables the whole package. The proposed solution is to downgrade to 1.6.3, or upgrade to a 1.8 preview, but the package manager now apparently "protects" me from myself. I know I can modify the package.json, but I can also just not use the Input System.

What a joke...

 

https://forum.unity.com/threads/see-all-versions-command-was-removed.1008619/page-2#post-8952063

 

Not found at all of this non-feature myself.

 

annoying

 

I know I came back to grab this script above again yesterday for yet another project to bypass the limitation.