I feel as if this brings up the same issues that came with private ModuleScripts.
3 Likes
Yes! That’s what i’ve been waiting for! 
What exactly is this? I assume this means you can block off others from viewing what’s inside the Packages? If so, this would bring up previous concerns regarding Closed Source Modules. I do not understand how this would not be abused, especially when it might soon be auto-updating… If someone could explain to me how this is different - or more secure - from Close Source Modules, please do.
3 Likes
I bet it’ll be like Closed-Source Modules, but with more power to the model maker. I really hope that that’s how it is anyways.
1 Like
Looking at the way packages work, and what was previously said regarding closed source models…
This just means that only select users can see the package.
Summary: It’d work exactly how it does currently, just that only approved users can access the package.
Disclaimer: I am not Roblox staff, and none of this is officially confirmed, I am merely voicing what I believe Access Control for Packages may look like.
Right now, you are the only person that can edit, modify, and use your Package.
This feature will allow you to share your Package without users being able to edit it, and allow you to add collaborators that will be able to make changes to your Package.
4 Likes
I wish the packages could live update automatically between Games of the same owner (Identical mass update function, but between Games themselves, not just places of a universe), including group games, this would make life easier for many people, including mine.
A good example of use is that when multiple games need identical scripts or modules, I just need to go one by one to update two lines.
Is there something about it on the way?
4 Likes
I’m kind of stuck here. What’s the main and small differences with Model/package?
Is it worth it converting something to Package instead of Model?
So will the “access permissions” operate almost identically to closed-source modules? I’d think this is almost backtracking into the same era of fear where said feature was being exploited and led many users to avoid using any open-source models or plugins found in the catalog.
Packages are a powerful feature, but I don’t believe that preventing a package’s patrons from viewing what the owner is doing to their game is a good idea. You don’t want to discourage entry-level developers from using free models as a learning tool because a package is associated with it.
1 Like
Perhaps the “use only” option would allow them to see/use the code from the package but not edit/write to the package?
2 Likes
Agreed, I don’t see Roblox blocking anyone from seeing the source code, particularly when considering the recent changes to require, now being unable to load private modules.
3 Likes
“Create symbolic link failed with error: The referenced version of the asset is not a package.”
I’m also seeing this issue on a game with many packages, I have no idea which linked package is causing the problem. All the package Status properties are showing: “Up to date”. If we had the asset id in the error, and if we could search the explorer view to find the problematic asset and at least remove the symlink and try re-linking or recreating the package asset. Currently, the explorer search does not include property values like asset id’s, and having to manually traverse a large hierarchy of objects, inspecting each for asset id’s is extremely tedious, and until this is fixed I’m probably going to remove the packages.
1 Like
I’m sorry but I don’t really get where this isn’t useful for. I usually just make models of selected parts so why making a package of it? It’s the same or am I wrong?
I would implore you to read the original post as they explain what packages are.
Packages are nothing like models and serve and entirely different purpose.
1 Like
Please add a feature so we can REMOVE packages, or remove the package functionality from an item.
You can delete the PackageLink instance to remove package functionality from an item.
1 Like
Wow, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that. Thank you.
1 Like
This is now causing issues for my group, as I wanted to convert to packages in order to update our universe (with 29 separate places) nearly simultaneously. However, my assisting developers aren’t able to actually see the package within the game menu like I am.
1 Like
Hey, I think that packages would be super useful for some sort of admin commands, toolkits, etc.
But the one thing I am interested in is would it overwrite objects? For example, if the user edited a Settings module, and it didn’t change in the package, but something else did, would it overwrite the Settings module? Would it give the user an option to save it?
Other than that, I am super excited to see how these work and just overall experiment with them now that they’re in beta.
Happy coding! 
1 Like
Yeah, this is problematic for me as well which is why I’m not using packages until this is addressed.
3 Likes