[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [FreeCiv-Cvs] vasc: Added gtk+ resource file for the client.

[Jeff Mallatt <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2000/03/04 20:55 , David Pfitzner wrote:
>Good, but I'm wondering if we should rationalize the locations
>of the config files somewhat.  We currently have:
>
>~/.civclientrc    common options for all clients
>~/Freeciv        Xaw resources file
>~/freeciv.rc     Gtk+ resources file
>~/.freeciv/      In default FREECIV_PATH, eg for rulesets, tilesets.
>
>Or maybe this is ok, if the toolkit-specific files follow the
>conventions for those toolkits?  (Eg, I'm not sure we can even 
>change ~/Freeciv for Xaw resources?)  But I would prefer 
>clientrc be moved into ~/.freeciv/ (and ideally we would also
>have a server rc file, planned for some time but not implemented 
>yet).

I'm sort of at a loss as to why ~/Freeciv is found at all!  But, though I
can't find it documented, it seems to work for Xt based programs (I tested
it using xterm), at least on my machine.

I guess, for something like consistency, I'd like:

~/Freeciv             - User installs manually only if wants to change.
~/freeciv.rc          - User installs manually only if wants to change.
                        (Maybe call it "Freeciv.rc"?)
~/.freeciv            - Directory created by application whenever needed.
~/.freeciv/clientrc   - Replaces current ~/.civclientrc file.
~/.freeciv/serverrc   - Server rc file, if ever implemented.
              .
              .
              .

>Another issue: we currently keep an autogenerated copy of
>client/gui-xaw/Freeciv.h in CVS; do we also want the new
>client/gui-gtk/Freeciv.h in CVS?  Recall we keep autogenerated
>files in CVS for the benefit of people who may not have all the
>tools.  In this case the only relevant tool seems to be 'sed',
>which configure etc rely on anyway, so maybe we need neither
>in CVS?

I have a slight preference for neither, but will this cause problems for
those trying to implement the Win32/GTK+ port?

Neither or both would be my vote.

jjm