Re: Differences Using "civserver" VS "civserver -r civ1.serv"

On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 08:38:28PM -0500, Ed Earl Ross wrote:
> Although, usr/local/share/freciv/ exists on my system. There was no
> /usr/local/share/freeciv/data/. Moreover, copying data/civ1/*.rulesets
> to /usr/local/share/freeciv did not make civserver -r civ1.serv work
> correctly. Perhaps security is not correct. I'll investigate.

are you sure it's not working correctly? see below. I don't actually
make install freeciv, do I don't know what the directory structure looks
like under /usr/local/share/freeciv. I'm not sure that there's supposed to
be a data/ directory underneath it. Maybe copying civ1/*.rulesets there
would work, but if the make install worked ok, then they should already be
there.

> My only remaining question is the following: Obviously, "civserver" and
> "civserver -r civ1.serv" use different rulesets--why? 
> 
> The description of the -r option does not 

-r reads in a script that set options and runs commands. one of those
commands in this case is rulesetdir <dir> That is why reading in the
civ1.serv script gives you a different ruleset.

As to the philosophical question why do they use different rulesets, 
the answer is that we didn't want freeciv to default to using the Civ I 
rules. They are after all fairly limiting... 

-mike