 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> 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.
I guess I could volunteer. Integrate boost, zlib, jpeg, tiff, and png into the
source then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BTW, to OP, I have statically compiled 64-bit x86-64 executables for Linux if
you're interested. Just tell me what CPU you have.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann
Subject: Re: Compiling PoV-Ray 3.7 under Linux
Date: 9 Nov 2011 23:29:37
Message: <4ebb5331@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
On 09.11.2011 23:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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).
Too often in the past I had experienced Google swamping me with useless
links leading only to useless info junk instead of showing me viable
ways to proceed... all that "Buy XXXXX now!" stuff, when searching for
whatever! Google sucks!
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:29:27 +0100, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Too often in the past I had experienced Google swamping me with useless
> links leading only to useless info junk instead of showing me viable
> ways to proceed... all that "Buy XXXXX now!" stuff, when searching for
> whatever! Google sucks!
I generally don't have that problem, but I have ad blockers installed, so
I don't see the adwords ads.
But I also have generally good luck in finding what I'm looking for using
Google. But if you don't want to use Google, that's fine, just insert a
different search engine. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann
Subject: Re: Compiling PoV-Ray 3.7 under Linux
Date: 10 Nov 2011 09:45:21
Message: <4ebbe381@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 10.11.2011 06:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But I also have generally good luck in finding what I'm looking for using
> Google. But if you don't want to use Google, that's fine, just insert a
> different search engine. :)
I'm generally skeptical of human knowledge organized by computers - they
are much too easily manipulated by clever web programmers, as no
present-day search engine really is able to detect the relevance of a
HTML text and thus to discern between phony catchword dumps (also mostly
automatically generated these days!) and information that really matters!
But who wants to pay human web librarians and archivists? Internet is
cheap, fast - and mostly worthless!
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
