On 11/09/2011 07:29 AM, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> On 09.11.2011 09:45, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
>> You can propably expect to also need the pictures' formats library also
>> in -dev version... start looking for :
>> libpng12-dev
>> libtiff4-dev
>> libjpeg62-dev
>> libopenexr-dev
>> ... and so on (number and package name might vary with your distribution)
>
> I mistook a "1" for an "l"... after correct that, configure went
> flawless, but at the end of the "make check" process, I got a huge mass
> of cryptic error messages, so "make install" did not work either.
>
> No, I give up... or wait until I either can afford a second computer
> running under Windows or the final release of 3.7 is published and
> finally available as a Debian standard package! Too bad, no really good
> looking indoor radiosity until at least next summer...
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar
hey don't give up ... sounds like you're close. I'd be willing to bet 
those last errors are related to the need for you to assume capabilities 
other than just what your user account has ... heard of sudo?

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

> hey don't give up ... sounds like you're close. I'd be willing to bet
> those last errors are related to the need for you to assume capabilities
> other than just what your user account has ... heard of sudo?

Yes... but I did in fact all operations as root!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Now playing: Going For The One (Yes)

Post a reply to this message

Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann <yaz### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> I'm about to give up...

  *sigh* Why do you insist in doing it the hard way? I already recommended
you to free up some disk space and allow your linux distro to do all the
work for you. Just install the packages with 'apt-get' (or whatever your
distro's package manager is). It's basically a plug&play system.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.11.2011 02:09, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:13:37 +0100, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
>
>> Obviously, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an average DAU (to the non-German
>> speakers: Most Stupid User To Assume!) to build any software under
>> Linux!
>
> No, it's not impossible, but it does require being willing to do your
> homework.
>
> For example, the question you asked about which version of Boost was
> needed was answered in the INSTALL file I linked you to.  Which file,
> IIRC, is included in the source you downloaded.

I recall that when I first started using Linux (in order to run POV-Ray 
on a separate machine, without having to pay for another copy of 
Windows) there was stuff I just thought I couldn't figure out on my own 
as well. While that feeling might have been wrong, it was there, and 
comments like "I told you everything you need to know" weren't really 
helpful in changing that emotion.

It's like being given a 5000-pieces jigsaw puzzle (without a reference 
image) when all you want is a picture to hang on the wall. Getting 
comments like "you have all the pieces to assemble the picture - all you 
need is a little bit of diligence" from people who seem to have seen the 
reference image a thousand times isn't much fun in that situation.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:52:30 +0100, clipka wrote:

> I recall that when I first started using Linux (in order to run POV-Ray
> on a separate machine, without having to pay for another copy of
> Windows) there was stuff I just thought I couldn't figure out on my own
> as well. While that feeling might have been wrong, it was there, and
> comments like "I told you everything you need to know" weren't really
> helpful in changing that emotion.
> 
> It's like being given a 5000-pieces jigsaw puzzle (without a reference
> image) when all you want is a picture to hang on the wall. Getting
> comments like "you have all the pieces to assemble the picture - all you
> need is a little bit of diligence" from people who seem to have seen the
> reference image a thousand times isn't much fun in that situation.

There's a difference between the questions you asked at the questions 
Joerg is asking....

You asked questions after looking for the answers (I remember - I was one 
of the ones who tried to help you).

Joerg is asking us to read the instructions for him.  Which version of 
boost is in the documentation in the source package he downloaded.  Had 
he read the documentation that is included with the sources, he wouldn't 
have had to ask.

He then went on to ask for someone to write him a tutorial on how to 
compile code on Linux, stating "Google isn't my friend".  But a Google 
search on the keywords I suggested turns up a good tutorial as the first 
hit.

Now, why should *anyone* do Google searches for him for something that 
trivial?  Why should *anyone* have to read the instructions included in 
the POVRay source to tell him what version of Boost to install - when 
he's fully capable of reading those instructions himself?

I'm sorry, but the answer to those questions is emphatically *RTFM*.  If, 
after reading the instructions, you still have questions, then by all 
means ask.

You took the time to try to find stuff first.  You didn't understand what 
you found, and asked questions about it.

Two entirely different situations.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

It would be helpful if the source was self contained like the 3.6 source with
the needed libraries distributed also. Makes compiling a lot less of a hassle.

Post a reply to this message

jhu <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> It would be helpful if the source was self contained like the 3.6 source with
> the needed libraries distributed also. Makes compiling a lot less of a hassle.

  That can pose some practical problems. Some libraries might come with their
own unique licenses, and including statically-linked library source code in
the distribution increases the size of both the distribution package and the
compiled binary. Some users might also want to make the choice of whether
to compile against the library already installed on the system or the one
which comes with the distribution.

  That being said, at least the Windows version of the POV-Ray source code
might be distributed with the necessary boost libraries included because
different versions of boost can be a PitA to compile for different versions
of Visual Studio, as boost isn't very well integrated into Windows nor the
Visual Studio compiling pipeline.

  Anyways, installing boost into a modern linux distro isn't usually a
problem. Most, of not all, modern distros have a package manager and a
standard repository with boost pre-compiled in it, and installing it is
a question of a couple of mouse clicks or writing a single command on the
command line, and in most cases it will just work afterwards without any
further configuration. The problems that the original poster is facing are
caused by his attempts to bypass the package manager and trying to compile
and install boost manually.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.11.2011 21:05, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:52:30 +0100, clipka wrote:
>
>> I recall that when I first started using Linux (in order to run POV-Ray
>> on a separate machine, without having to pay for another copy of
>> Windows) there was stuff I just thought I couldn't figure out on my own
>> as well. While that feeling might have been wrong, it was there, and
>> comments like "I told you everything you need to know" weren't really
>> helpful in changing that emotion.
>>
>> It's like being given a 5000-pieces jigsaw puzzle (without a reference
>> image) when all you want is a picture to hang on the wall. Getting
>> comments like "you have all the pieces to assemble the picture - all you
>> need is a little bit of diligence" from people who seem to have seen the
>> reference image a thousand times isn't much fun in that situation.
>
> There's a difference between the questions you asked at the questions
> Joerg is asking....
>
> You asked questions after looking for the answers (I remember - I was one
> of the ones who tried to help you).

And still I was frustrated about the answers.

Aside from that, sticking to the principle of good faith, I see no hint 
in his messages that he didn't do the same before.

> Joerg is asking us to read the instructions for him.  Which version of
> boost is in the documentation in the source package he downloaded.  Had
> he read the documentation that is included with the sources, he wouldn't
> have had to ask.

Read his posting again:

"I soon realized that I would have to install some ominous "boost" 
packages. But as nobody could tell me exactly which of these packages I 
would have to install, I simply tried apt-get install boost* - and, 
promptly, blew my system completely as the system partition ran full."

He's not asking about /versions/ here - he's asking about /packages/. I 
suspect that his Linux distribution doesn't simply offer "boost" and 
"boost_dev" for installation, but rather "boost_date_time", 
"boost_filesystem", "boost_graph", "boost_graph_parallel", 
"boost_iostreams", "boost_math", "boost_mpi", "boost_program_options", 
"boost_python", "boost_random", "boost_regex", "boost_serialization", 
"boost_signals", "boost_system", "boost_test", "boost_thread", 
"boost_wave" and - of course - "boost_dev". Nowhere in "install.txt" do 
I see mention which of these are needed.

> He then went on to ask for someone to write him a tutorial on how to
> compile code on Linux, stating "Google isn't my friend".  But a Google
> search on the keywords I suggested turns up a good tutorial as the first
> hit.

I don't see him asking for someone to /write/ one. I see him asking 
where to /find/ one.

As for the quality of the tutorial, it mentions not much besides what's 
in the POV-Ray install.txt already. No hint about what an "#include 
path" is, nor any hint what to do if "./compile" and/or "make install" 
don't run successfully.

>
> Now, why should *anyone* do Google searches for him for something that
> trivial?  Why should *anyone* have to read the instructions included in
> the POVRay source to tell him what version of Boost to install - when
> he's fully capable of reading those instructions himself?
>
> I'm sorry, but the answer to those questions is emphatically *RTFM*.  If,
> after reading the instructions, you still have questions, then by all
> means ask.
>
> You took the time to try to find stuff first.  You didn't understand what
> you found, and asked questions about it.

I may be wrong, but so far I see no clear sign of Yadgar behaving any 
different. What /I/ see is fully in line with my hypothesis that he's 
confused, and frustrated because he can't find the needle in the 
haystack (or, what it possibly looks like to him, the needle in the 
stack of needles) that helps him to get from where he is right now to 
where he wants to go - because he doesn't even know what that particular 
needle might look like.

So he may have tried a number of needles on the problem already, finding 
that they didn't help, and now resorts to asking whether someone more 
familiar with needles might be willing to help him dig out that nasty thing.

> Two entirely different situations.

 From what I see it may well be exactly the same. Including similar 
responses. Except that Yadgar's reaction to the whole thing seems to be 
more like "I'm going to shoot myself" while my reaction was more like 
"I'm going to shoot everyone in the room".

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:19:41 +0100, clipka wrote:

>> You asked questions after looking for the answers (I remember - I was
>> one of the ones who tried to help you).
> 
> And still I was frustrated about the answers.
> 
> Aside from that, sticking to the principle of good faith, I see no hint
> in his messages that he didn't do the same before.

Perhaps I read into it something that wasn't there - I've had a couple of 
discussions in the past couple of days where the person asking the 
questions clearly and unambiguously essentially said "I'm too lazy to do 
my own work, do it for me."

Perhaps I projected that onto Joerg - and if I did that, Joerg, I 
apologise. :)

>> Joerg is asking us to read the instructions for him.  Which version of
>> boost is in the documentation in the source package he downloaded.  Had
>> he read the documentation that is included with the sources, he
>> wouldn't have had to ask.
> 
> Read his posting again:
> 
> "I soon realized that I would have to install some ominous "boost"
> packages. But as nobody could tell me exactly which of these packages I
> would have to install, I simply tried apt-get install boost* - and,
> promptly, blew my system completely as the system partition ran full."
> 
> He's not asking about /versions/ here - he's asking about /packages/. I
> suspect that his Linux distribution doesn't simply offer "boost" and
> "boost_dev" for installation, but rather "boost_date_time",
> "boost_filesystem", "boost_graph", "boost_graph_parallel",
> "boost_iostreams", "boost_math", "boost_mpi", "boost_program_options",
> "boost_python", "boost_random", "boost_regex", "boost_serialization",
> "boost_signals", "boost_system", "boost_test", "boost_thread",
> "boost_wave" and - of course - "boost_dev". Nowhere in "install.txt" do
> I see mention which of these are needed.

That's a fair point.  My bad.

>> He then went on to ask for someone to write him a tutorial on how to
>> compile code on Linux, stating "Google isn't my friend".  But a Google
>> search on the keywords I suggested turns up a good tutorial as the
>> first hit.
> 
> I don't see him asking for someone to /write/ one. I see him asking
> where to /find/ one.

Fair enough, but a Google search does in fact turn up a reasonable 
tutorial on compiling on Linux.

One does have to be willing to use the tools available instead of just 
declaring "I won't use Google" (which is the way I read his "Google is 
not my friend" comment).

> As for the quality of the tutorial, it mentions not much besides what's
> in the POV-Ray install.txt already. No hint about what an "#include
> path" is, nor any hint what to do if "./compile" and/or "make install"
> don't run successfully.

I used that first link as an example - of course one might have to dig a 
bit further to learn about include paths.

> So he may have tried a number of needles on the problem already, finding
> that they didn't help, and now resorts to asking whether someone more
> familiar with needles might be willing to help him dig out that nasty
> thing.

Fair enough.  However, it is generally considered good form to say "I've 
tried x, y, and z" so people don't suggest you do things you've already 
tried.  Suggesting things that have already been tried wastes everyone's 
time.

>> Two entirely different situations.
> 
>  From what I see it may well be exactly the same. Including similar
> responses. Except that Yadgar's reaction to the whole thing seems to be
> more like "I'm going to shoot myself" while my reaction was more like
> "I'm going to shoot everyone in the room".

Well, like I said, I remember your situation as being quite different, 
but it's very possible (I might even say 'likely') that I'm projecting 
another situation onto his situation.

If that's the case, Yagdar, I *do* apologise.  It was not my intention to 
be short-tempered with you or to drive you away from trying to build it 
yourself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.11.2011 23:00, schrieb jhu:
> It would be helpful if the source was self contained like the 3.6 source with
> the needed libraries distributed also. Makes compiling a lot less of a hassle.

Work is currently underway to achieve this for the Windows distrubution 
for Visual Studio 2010, with promising success; porting that to the 
projects for VS 2005 (and also VS 2008, which is pretty similar in this 
regard) should also be quite straightforward - but will take some time 
nonetheless, and we're still looking for a volunteer to do the same for 
the Unix distribution.

Post a reply to this message