2009-03-03 03:27:01 +00:00
|
|
|
===============================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
Why our own derivate of the LDMud?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Expecting our psyced admins to find a suitable version made installation
|
|
|
|
|
unnecessarily complicated, and every now and then an ldmud release does
|
|
|
|
|
indeed not work for psyced.
|
|
|
|
|
* We love the work mateese has been doing and still does, and we will
|
|
|
|
|
surely continue to share all gotchas and improvements so that both
|
|
|
|
|
variants of LDMud strive. Only we catch ourselves needing to have a
|
|
|
|
|
shorter change inclusion and release cycle. We asked mateese before
|
|
|
|
|
taking this step.
|
|
|
|
|
* For that reason we had been making the psyced install procedure too
|
|
|
|
|
complicated, as it was always trying to patch some things in the ldmud
|
|
|
|
|
source, even when it didn't know which ldmud version it was working on.
|
|
|
|
|
* Now to have psyced and its driver bundled in a pair which is safely known
|
|
|
|
|
to be happily working together is a simple yet great step forward.
|
|
|
|
|
* This makes the whole psyced installation base more homogeneous. We don't
|
|
|
|
|
have to deal with deployed instances that do not properly do this or that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should still be possible to run psyced with an off-the-mill ldmud and
|
|
|
|
|
counterwise run a MUD installation with a psyclpc.
|
|
|
|
|
===============================================================================
|
2011-12-14 21:16:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is ERQ crashing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- erq doesn't conform to fortify code safety standards. this is ugly and
|
|
|
|
|
should be fixed but it is okay to just turn off fortify because erq is
|
|
|
|
|
fed exclusively with sanitized data from psyced, so buffer overruns are
|
|
|
|
|
possible but only theoretical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
