 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> It's official now:
>
> https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.8.0-beta.1
>
>
> A note to Unix users:
>
> We're now providing Unix-specific source code packages again. We
> recommend that you build from the `povunix-*.tar.gz` tarball, rather
> than the "Source code (tar.gz)" or "Source code (zip)" packages or the
> raw repo contents.
>
>
> A note to Windows XP users:
>
> Let us know if there are still any of you out there. Otherwise we'll
> presume that Vista (and higher) support should be enough for everybody.
>
>
> Happy Testing!
I could install and run the benchmark without any problems on two Linux
machines.
Thank you Clipka.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 12.07.2021 um 00:02 schrieb jr:
>
> >> I think I've found something ...
there was one other (small) thing, forgot to mention. during installation, if
another 3.8 version already exists, the old 'povray.{conf,ini}' files get
renamed to '*.bak' and new files are put in place. this has the disadvantage
that the existing povray no longer works as configured. the usual practice is
to leave existing files alone if found, and create the distributed as
'povray.{conf,ini}.new'; "admin" then integrates manually.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 14.07.2021 um 11:34 schrieb jr:
> there was one other (small) thing, forgot to mention. during installation, if
> another 3.8 version already exists, the old 'povray.{conf,ini}' files get
> renamed to '*.bak' and new files are put in place. this has the disadvantage
> that the existing povray no longer works as configured. the usual practice is
> to leave existing files alone if found, and create the distributed as
> 'povray.{conf,ini}.new'; "admin" then integrates manually.
Can you please file an issue report on GitHub, to put a propoer pin in this?
I tend to lose track of stuff mentioned only on the newsgroups.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 14.07.2021 um 11:34 schrieb jr:
>
> > there was one other (small) thing, forgot to mention. during installation, if
> > another 3.8 version already exists, the old 'povray.{conf,ini}' files get
> > renamed to '*.bak' and new files are put in place. this has the disadvantage
> > that the existing povray no longer works as configured. the usual practice is
> > to leave existing files alone if found, and create the distributed as
> > 'povray.{conf,ini}.new'; "admin" then integrates manually.
>
> Can you please file an issue report on GitHub, to put a propoer pin in this?
went there, cannot add an "issue" without acquiring an account. sorry.
> I tend to lose track of stuff mentioned only on the newsgroups.
perhaps a "kind soul" with github membership followed this thread and will
create the report.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.07.2021 um 16:14 schrieb jr:
>> Can you please file an issue report on GitHub, to put a propoer pin in this?
>
> went there, cannot add an "issue" without acquiring an account. sorry.
I'd argue that it's worth it, given that it's free of charge. It may not
be the last issue you might want to report.
GitHub _is_ our preferred place for bug reports these days.
And we're by far not the only ones. There is an ever growing number of
other pieces of open source software out there that have GitHub as their
_only_ official channel for bug reporting. Having a GitHub account opens
up the door to those, too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 15.07.2021 um 16:14 schrieb jr:
>
> >> Can you please file an issue report on GitHub, to put a propoer pin in this?
> >
> > went there, cannot add an "issue" without acquiring an account. sorry.
>
> I'd argue that it's worth it, given that it's free of charge. It may not
> be the last issue you might want to report.
I'm sure that people like you, self-confessed "Windows jockeys" that is, find
the environment .. conducive to your working. a bit like Linux distributions,
some people find Ubuntu/Debian "floats their boat".
fwiw, the 'github.com/POV-Ray/povray/tags' page would benefit from showing
checksums (sha256?) for the archives, too.
> GitHub _is_ our preferred place for bug reports these days.
sure. (though regrettable from my perspective) as long as no account is needed
to download the source archive.
> And we're by far not the only ones. There is an ever growing number of
> other pieces of open source software ...
the "not the only ones" argument reminds me of an old saying "people, eat more
shit, four billion flies can't be wrong". fifteen or twenty years ago,
SourceForge was the place to be (seen) on, maybe github will do better, who
knows?
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.07.2021 um 13:45 schrieb jr:
> fwiw, the 'github.com/POV-Ray/povray/tags' page would benefit from showing
> checksums (sha256?) for the archives, too.
I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be.
If you do not trust to get the proper archives from GitHub, I see no
reason to trust that you'll see the proper SHAs for those files.
(Or do you mena SHAs of the commits corresponding to those tags? Well,
the first 7 digits of those _are_ shown on that page; and if you click
on those, it'll take you to a page where the full SHA of the commit is
shown in all its glory.)
Now, publishing checksums on the POV-Ray home page, that might be
another matter. But even then, it only really makes sense for versions
we build on our own machines and upload to GitHub later. Not so much for
the betas: They are built directly on GitHub servers.
(And yes, I do trust Microsoft's GitHub servers more than I do my own
Windows 10 machine.)
>> GitHub _is_ our preferred place for bug reports these days.
>
> sure. (though regrettable from my perspective) as long as no account is needed
> to download the source archive.
These days, there is pretty much no software project that allows the
reporting of bugs without _some_ form of identification. It's just not
possible anymore - they'd be swamped by spambots.
And with that in mind, I for one welcome our new insect overl... erm, I
mean, I for one applaud every project that uses some reasonably common
bug tracking service, rather than rolling their own. Because although I
do agree that it sucks to be unable to report a bug without registering
_somewhere_, in my opinion it sucks less if that registration is good
for multiple pieces of software that I use.
>> And we're by far not the only ones. There is an ever growing number of
>> other pieces of open source software ...
>
> the "not the only ones" argument reminds me of an old saying "people, eat more
> shit, four billion flies can't be wrong". fifteen or twenty years ago,
> SourceForge was the place to be (seen) on, maybe github will do better, who
> knows?
SourceForge thought they could exploit their pole position with
impunity. Which is how they lost it to GitHub.
We didn't go to GitHub because we thought it was the bee's knees; we
went there because we decided to set up a public repository, in hopes to
get more people to contribute - and SourceForge had just gone rogue at
the time we were ready to actually go ahead with that step. GitHub just
happened to be pretty much the only contender, and actually we were
initially quite skeptical, not the least because we had no experience
with Git in particular nor even any other distributed version control
system in general.
Looking back, I'm sure it wasn't the worst of choices.
Also, I'm not saying you should join the flies and host your own
projects there (although I might, if you were to ask for advice in that
matter). Going with that image, it's more like I'm saying that if you
want to catch flies, that's where to find lots of them. That's not a
question of taste - it's just pure matter of fact.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> ... github ...
I suspect you could sell ice boxes to the inuit -- in mid-winter. ;-)
>> fwiw, ... checksums ...
>
> I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be.
>
> If you do not trust to get the proper archives from GitHub, I see no
> reason to trust that you'll see the proper SHAs for those files.
not worried/paranoid about GitHub as an organisation, just wary of .. clever
individuals, who always find some nook or cranny.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> ... v3.8.0-beta.1 ...
> Happy Testing!
when I run the beta with '-cc +w400 +h300 +a +rtr +kla', the preview window pops
up but shows nothing. the current 'povr' is fine with exact same command-line.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.07.2021 um 13:07 schrieb jr:
> hi,
>
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> ... v3.8.0-beta.1 ...
>> Happy Testing!
>
> when I run the beta with '-cc +w400 +h300 +a +rtr +kla', the preview window pops
> up but shows nothing. the current 'povr' is fine with exact same command-line.
"povr" is not POV-Ray. It is a derivative work by someone who also
happens to work on POV.Ray.
I don't have the capacity (nor even an overwiew of what would have to be
done) to merge Bill's changes into POV-Ray proper.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
