Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve romm output token #1414

Open
mainrs opened this issue Jan 23, 2025 · 1 comment
Open

Improve romm output token #1414

mainrs opened this issue Jan 23, 2025 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested

Comments

@mainrs
Copy link

mainrs commented Jan 23, 2025

Is your feature request related to a problem?

Romm expects the data to be present in two formats:

https://github.com/rommapp/romm?tab=readme-ov-file#folder-structure

However, the current output token is only capable of producing the library/roms folder of structure A. This is the case if one specifically asks igir to output to libbrary/roms/{romm}.

Describe the solution you'd like

It would be great if the token would work in such a way that it puts all roms into library/roms and all bios files into library/bios when specifying the output library/{romm}.

Additional context

One could think about adding rommA and rommB as alternatives to the current one, keeping backwards compatibility.

@mainrs mainrs added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 23, 2025
@emmercm
Copy link
Owner

emmercm commented Feb 13, 2025

If I understand it right, for "Structure B" you'd want to run Igir with two different sets of options:

igir \
... \
--output "library/{romm}/roms" \
--no-bios

and

igir \
... \
--output "library/{romm}/bios" \
--only-bios

I think you would need to do something similar for "Structure A" as well. I'm hesitant to make any changes because the current token should allow for both formats.

Thoughts?

@emmercm emmercm added the question Further information is requested label Feb 27, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants