- User Since
- Mar 22 2020, 12:16 PM (25 w, 6 d)
Jun 26 2020
My change was merged, i tested it again now with the newest git gave me.
It builds and runs fine on alpine linux for me.
Jun 23 2020
Ah, i did not know about -o, otherwise i might have done that myself.
Jun 5 2020
May 23 2020
I've build this with D2671 aplied beforehand on alpine linux, afterwards i was able to run the game (i had some js errors in game setup view, but likely not related, wasn't on the highest revision but could do that if needed)
Moved the comment, moved the if bsd conditionals to the variable asignment for readability
Apr 29 2020
rP20471 purposely added foundations to the conquest queries, since with a single foundation (of a conquest critical building) an ally can build it and you can rebuild your army.
I would still argue that this makes little since, if an ally is supposed to be able to rebuild your civ then hey should just be able to rebuild your civ.
Regardless I don't think marking foundations conquestcritical is a good solution for allowing allies to rebuild your (obviously destroyed) civ, the code should rather treat the entire teams dead or alive status as one and allow allies to build new buildings for you.
Apr 16 2020
Just make sure that you don't get defeated like this in a teamgame until all allies don't have any units. As it would be very annoying to get defeated whilst an ally is building your Civic center.
Mar 28 2020
Alright, i can move the test to line 92 cache the result and then retest. (with apropriate comments)
Would it be easy to detect musl?
No, it wouldn't, and detecting musl does not seem desireable either since the libc is supposed to be useable anyway.
We basically only need to figure out if the symbol is available in the system libc or not, which this test does.
and waiting for the test compilation would slow down the pre-build process.
Atleast for my (by now low-to-medium end) system it's a negligable ammount of time.
Mar 26 2020
I've never player Conquest only units or only structures, so no clue what is supposed to happen there.
Not needed with the differing aproach in D2674.
The new patch looks to work fine, just tested it.
This looks to be unrelated changes aswell? Should i just test the ConquestCritical -> ConquestCritical+!Foundation part?
The only other option I see would be to introduce a new token that can be removed without a warning, The commit that introduced the warning fixed a crash when removing the token anyhow.
Please see D2678 for the patch to remove the warning.