Le Forgeron wrote:

[..]
> 
> use:
> povray inputfile.ini
> 
> instead of your complex line!
> Best of both world: command-line expandable and rememberable setting!
> 
> 
I often change filenames and image sizes. Sometimes I create makefiles, but
it makes too much work. Ini-files either.

Preventing one suggestion: No, I do not want a GUI.

Post a reply to this message

marabou <not### [at] availableyet> wrote:
> povray +pv +w 640 +h 480 +i inputfile.pov +o outputfile.png

> I often use command expandation by tabs. If some would take away my
> expandation I would throw away my PC. ;-)

  I don't understand what do you need command "expandation" there,
except for the input file name, which you can give to povray without
the +i anyways.

  Put the default command-line parameters, those which you always use,
in ~/.povray/3.6/povray.ini and the rest is rather easy to write in
the command line, like this:

povray inp<tab> -w640 -h480 +a

  Since you are using filename expansion, you probably are using command
history too, so to repeat that command just press the up arrow until
it appears.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

marabou wrote:
> Povray has a license which does not allow to distribute a not official
> patched version. So doing it on my own does not look realistic.

This is probably not correct, distribution of patched versions is permitted
in most circumstances provided the requirements are followed. What part of
the license do you have an issue with?

-- Chris Cason
   POV-Team

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:

> marabou wrote:
>> Povray has a license which does not allow to distribute a not official
>> patched version. So doing it on my own does not look realistic.
> 
> This is probably not correct, distribution of patched versions is
> permitted in most circumstances provided the requirements are followed.
> What part of the license do you have an issue with?
> 
> -- Chris Cason
>    POV-Team

I would not call it an issue. 
After reading source-license.txt I have understood that it is permitted to
alter source code in most circumstances. My thoughts are that:
Every source file has a copyright notice and a reference to povlegal(.doc).
Every copyright is related to POV team or Persistence of Vision Raytracer
Pty. Ltd. That is right. If code is altered, copyright holders a not more
completely correct, because someone has done modifications. It would look
as modified code would come from team members or, if source is marked
unofficial, you can not distinguish which codeline is official and which is
not.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

[..]
>   Put the default command-line parameters, those which you always use,
> in ~/.povray/3.6/povray.ini and the rest is rather easy to write in
> the command line, like this:
> 
> povray inp<tab> -w640 -h480 +a
> 
[..]

Last time I read
<html-documentation-path>/povray-3.6/html/s_95.html#s03_01_02_04
was in version 3.5. So I did not know that this is possible.
Interestingly documentation says that input file should be last parameter.
But it renders with that commandline you said.
It was my fault and my thoughts are obsolete.
Thank you very much.

Post a reply to this message

marabou wrote:
> After reading source-license.txt I have understood that it is permitted to
> alter source code in most circumstances. My thoughts are that:
> Every source file has a copyright notice and a reference to povlegal(.doc).
> Every copyright is related to POV team or Persistence of Vision Raytracer
> Pty. Ltd. That is right. If code is altered, copyright holders a not more
> completely correct, because someone has done modifications. It would look
> as modified code would come from team members or, if source is marked
> unofficial, you can not distinguish which codeline is official and which is
> not.

You have a point here; we do not have an official policy on how others should
mark individual files that they have modified. Probably we should put some
thought into this prior to releasing the version 3.7 source code.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

marabou <not### [at] availableyet> wrote:
> If code is altered, copyright holders a not more
> completely correct, because someone has done modifications. It would look
> as modified code would come from team members

isn't it the same as with GPL code?  Linus Torvalds holds the copyright to
the original code he writes in the Linus kernel, but modifications are
copyrighted by whomever made them...

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
[..]
> 
> You have a point here; we do not have an official policy on how others
> should mark individual files that they have modified. Probably we should
> put some thought into this prior to releasing the version 3.7 source code.
> 
> -- Chris
I am not fanatic for any paragraphs, surely not. But if you want accomplish
your rules some helping hand for people who do any modifications would be
likely.
One idea could be to diff modified code with official source code. 

But on the other hand: this could be too much work for some coders. 
And if a rule is too complex this could mean that some (most?) people do not
publish their own good modifications anymore.

Post a reply to this message

marabou wrote:
> But on the other hand: this could be too much work for some coders. 
> And if a rule is too complex this could mean that some (most?) people do not
> publish their own good modifications anymore.

well all I was thinking of is requiring a statement to be added to the header
of the file that it has been modified, and by whom. I don't think that's too
much of a burden.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:

[..]
> well all I was thinking of is requiring a statement to be added to the
> header of the file that it has been modified, and by whom. I don't think
> that's too much of a burden.

of course

Post a reply to this message