On 2023/05/31 18:36:42 +0300, Anton Konyahin wrote:
> On 31/05, Omar Polo wrote:
>
> >Agreed. I prefer the second patch too, which I'm reattaching since it
> >was mangled (whitespaces; 'patch -l' is not enough, but 'got patch'
> >managed to apply it.)
>
> My bad, I am still not very comfortable
On 31/05, Omar Polo wrote:
Agreed. I prefer the second patch too, which I'm reattaching since it
was mangled (whitespaces; 'patch -l' is not enough, but 'got patch'
managed to apply it.)
My bad, I am still not very comfortable with mailing patches, but I will learn.
Will wait a bit still in
On 2023/05/29 08:46:02 +0300, Anton Konyahin wrote:
> I can suggest another (much less) patch, which still allows users to
> play hack without path modification. But all this stuff with checking
> saves creating time doesn't looks actual for me, so I keep original
> patch below.
Agreed. I prefer
I can suggest another (much less) patch, which still allows users to
play hack without path modification. But all this stuff with checking
saves creating time doesn't looks actual for me, so I keep original
patch below.
Index: hack.unix.c
==
Hello.
After removing /usr/games from PATH, hack failing with error:
Cannot get status of hack.
Hack tries to get information about st_mtime of execuatble, so it
search for hack in all directories from path. Game wants to compare
modification time of hack and saves, so saves from previous ver
