|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:27:15 EST, "cconstan" <cco### [at] cscuvicca> wrote:
> ok, so it's not a bug. I read the README.unix but not README as they
> traditionally contain very unusful information for Unix people.
This feature is not Unix related. It is necessity for all platforms.
> No, I consider it someone frivolous (sp?) to require the person doing the
> compile to put there name in a macro for crying out loud. I shouldn't have
> to do it at all.
You are responsible for your own compilation since this reflects _your_
knowledge about compiling and sharing habits, _your_ intentions about
influencing other environments (including viruses), configuration of _your_
system. What's wrong with signing your version for these reasons? Imagine, You
will give your (working for You) binaries to somebody and it will not work
there. Who should be first informed - overloaded team or the one who made
binaries ?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
>I told you why:
>
>"As a matter of fact the directive
>is there for exactly this reason because in the past countless people did
>not read any documentation and started to distribute unofficial versions of
>POV-Ray that violated the POV-Ray license."
>
>The license requires that you provide the information your are supposed to
>enter there if you want to distribute the version you compiled.
>
> Thorsten
I have just read this thread and am filled with the urge to ask the same
question that I have asked many times before :
Why is there no Official build for Solaris?
In the past I have exchanged emails with Mark Gordon on this topic and
the answer is generally the same every time : you need the Sun hardware.
I agree that you need the Sun hardware and, far more importantly, the
correct and professional development tools to build the binaries in such
a way that they run well on the Intel Pentium revisions as well as the
Sun Sparc processor revisions. You can not achieve reasonable optimization
with gcc and I think this fact has been very well demonstrated.
I have wanted to build a correct and optimized build of POV-Ray for quite
some time. Building the previous revisions was no big deal but the latest
rev caused me some issues. Yes, I am sure that I can build it in its most
recent edition but that is not the point. Why is there no official version?
Before you answer that quation with "I don't have Sun hardware and Forte
compiler tools" may I suggest that you have a close look at the website
at www.blastwave.org ? You will note that an entire Sun Solaris development
lab has been built there in which ALL the hardware and software required is
provided to the user for free. All they need to do is drop me a line with
a proposal for the project that they will work on. When done, the software
will be bundled up as a correctly built Sun Solaris software package and
then distributed by blastwave.org to the Sun user community. Since I have
built and funded the site, and Sun Microsystems is behind me on this, why
is there no official build for POV-Ray for Solaris?
Sun users want POV-Ray and Sun people, both internal and external, would be
happy to help you with it.
After all, doesn't POV-Ray deserve to be chewing up CPU cycles at every big
Sun server farm all over the world? :)
Dennis M. Clarke
Sponsor, Owner and Admin for
CSW - Community Software for Solaris
http://www.blastwave.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Compile problems povray 3.50c and Solaris 8 x86
Date: 30 Mar 2003 13:14:38
Message: <3e87340e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.0303301152250.15852@blastwave> , Dennis Clarke
<dcl### [at] blastwaveorg> wrote:
> I have just read this thread and am filled with the urge to ask the same
> question that I have asked many times before :
>
> Why is there no Official build for Solaris?
The team has one maintainer for every platform with official support. And
official versions require official support. Which requires detailed
knowledge about the system being supported. It is more than just compiling
POV-Ray. So we just follow a conservative approach in not making official
versions available we cannot promise we will be able to support. There is
nothing keeping from anybody else making unofficial versions available. In
essence, official support is the only difference between official compiles
and unofficial compiles of the official source code.
> In the past I have exchanged emails with Mark Gordon on this topic and
> the answer is generally the same every time : you need the Sun hardware.
Indeed, without it is hard. Of course, those are easy to get access to for
some people, but access and time are two different stories ;-)
> I have wanted to build a correct and optimized build of POV-Ray for quite
> some time. Building the previous revisions was no big deal but the latest
> rev caused me some issues. Yes, I am sure that I can build it in its most
> recent edition but that is not the point.
Well, the build issues on various non-Linux Unix versions are being
addressed, and some pieces of it (like 64 bit compatibility) will be
available in 3.51 source code. It will only get easier to compile and run
POV-Ray on multiple Unix platforms in the future.
> Since I have
> built and funded the site, and Sun Microsystems is behind me on this, why
> is there no official build for POV-Ray for Solaris?
Well, just having the hardware and software obviously isn't enough for an
officially supported version as pointed out above. There is more to it, and
there is also a "political" aspect: Once we soften our stand of when a
compile is official, we also get users of other platforms asking for the
same.
The users of Power, MIPS, PA-RISC or Alpha based systems with their
multitude of Unix (-like) systems will want their official version as well.
> After all, doesn't POV-Ray deserve to be chewing up CPU cycles at every big
> Sun server farm all over the world? :)
Well, given that the POV-Ray 3.x does not support multithreading or any
other means of easy way to run efficiently on multiprocessor systems with
all features working, there isn't too much point to it. Otherwise I would
really love to run compile and run POV-Ray on this
<http://www.rz.rwth-aachen.de/hpc/SUN/index_e.html> baby at my current
university assuming I would find the time next to graduate studies ;-)
So it is not lack of interest that prevents an official version, but it is
lack of feasibility taking into account all of the various issues I pointed
out above.
Sorry!
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Calimet
Subject: Re: Compile problems povray 3.50c and Solaris 8 x86
Date: 30 Mar 2003 16:24:41
Message: <3E876098.3090700@free.fr>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Otherwise I would
> really love to run compile and run POV-Ray on this
> <http://www.rz.rwth-aachen.de/hpc/SUN/index_e.html> baby at my current
> university assuming I would find the time next to graduate studies ;-)
Wow, this baby still ranks #173 at top500.org, so maybe you should
give it a try ;-) I don't remember if there is a MPI compile of the last
POV-Ray 3.50c, for I would use it on our Helics cluster (#64, that's nearly
the fastest Linux cluster in Germany and Europe)...
Geeee can't find any MPI version of 3.5 on the povray links {sigh}
Mmmh, should be something to consider in my TODO list for 3.51 ;-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.0303301152250.15852@blastwave> , Dennis Clarke
><dcl### [at] blastwaveorg> wrote:
>
>> I have just read this thread and am filled with the urge to ask the same
>> question that I have asked many times before :
>>
>> Why is there no Official build for Solaris?
>
>The team has one maintainer for every platform with official support. And
>official versions require official support. Which requires detailed
>knowledge about the system being supported. It is more than just compiling
>POV-Ray. So we just follow a conservative approach in not making official
>versions available we cannot promise we will be able to support. There is
>nothing keeping from anybody else making unofficial versions available. In
>essence, official support is the only difference between official compiles
>and unofficial compiles of the official source code.
In that case I guess it will be OK for the people at www.blastwave.org to
go ahead and package up POV-Ray for Solaris and then release that build
to the Solaris community as an unofficial build.
>
>> In the past I have exchanged emails with Mark Gordon on this topic and
>> the answer is generally the same every time : you need the Sun hardware.
>
>Indeed, without it is hard. Of course, those are easy to get access to for
>some people, but access and time are two different stories ;-)
Thankfully the blastwave crew has a membership full of die-hard Sun types
that can easily program their way through the builds. I don't expect that
we will change the code unless there are valid reasons to avoid compiler
warnings or errors.
>
>> I have wanted to build a correct and optimized build of POV-Ray for quite
>> some time. Building the previous revisions was no big deal but the latest
>> rev caused me some issues. Yes, I am sure that I can build it in its most
>> recent edition but that is not the point.
>
>Well, the build issues on various non-Linux Unix versions are being
>addressed, and some pieces of it (like 64 bit compatibility) will be
>available in 3.51 source code. It will only get easier to compile and run
>POV-Ray on multiple Unix platforms in the future.
I see that there has been work done in that area and with luck POV-Ray will
post respectable performance numbers while being consistent across the
different architectures.
>
>> Since I have
>> built and funded the site, and Sun Microsystems is behind me on this, why
>> is there no official build for POV-Ray for Solaris?
>
>Well, just having the hardware and software obviously isn't enough for an
>officially supported version as pointed out above. There is more to it, and
>there is also a "political" aspect: Once we soften our stand of when a
>compile is official, we also get users of other platforms asking for the
>same.
I agree and see your point clearly.
>
>The users of Power, MIPS, PA-RISC or Alpha based systems with their
>multitude of Unix (-like) systems will want their official version as well.
>
>> After all, doesn't POV-Ray deserve to be chewing up CPU cycles at every big
>> Sun server farm all over the world? :)
>
>Well, given that the POV-Ray 3.x does not support multithreading or any
>other means of easy way to run efficiently on multiprocessor systems with
>all features working, there isn't too much point to it. Otherwise I would
>really love to run compile and run POV-Ray on this
><http://www.rz.rwth-aachen.de/hpc/SUN/index_e.html> baby at my current
>university assuming I would find the time next to graduate studies ;-)
Ah yes, the old multi-threading issue that has haunted POVRay users for many
years. I think that a complete rewrite of the code would be required to get
POV-Ray to dispatch POSIX compliant worker threads. The thread model problem
is a big one when one considers that you support Windows and Linux. One can
only shudder at the work load required to make POV-Ray a multithreaded ray
tracing engine.
>
>So it is not lack of interest that prevents an official version, but it is
>lack of feasibility taking into account all of the various issues I pointed
>out above.
>
>Sorry!
Hey, I can always built it myself!
Thanks for the quick reply :)
Dennis Clarke
dcl### [at] blastwaveorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Compile problems povray 3.50c and Solaris 8 x86
Date: 30 Mar 2003 18:01:20
Message: <3e877740$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3E8### [at] freefr> , Nicolas Calimet <pov### [at] freefr>
wrote:
> Wow, this baby still ranks #173 at top500.org, so maybe you should
> give it a try ;-)
Yes, it should be back in the top 50 this summer... :-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well .. I am now working on an "Official Release of POV-Ray" from
blastwave.org which will be a Un-Official Release from the POV-Ray team and
will be clearly marked as such.
However ... first kick at this big electric cat results in :
bash-2.03$ ./configure --prefix=/opt/csw
.
. all good stuff ...
.
bash-2.03$ make
Making all in doc
Making all in html
Making all in images
Making all in vfaq
make: Fatal error: Don't know how to make target `skysphe'
Current working directory
/export/medusa/dclarke/build/sparc/povray-3.50c/doc/html/images
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive'
Current working directory
/export/medusa/dclarke/build/sparc/povray-3.50c/doc/html/images
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive'
Current working directory
/export/medusa/dclarke/build/sparc/povray-3.50c/doc/html
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive'
Current working directory /export/medusa/dclarke/build/sparc/povray-3.50c/doc
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive'
.. yep .. that's what I expected.
Once I get this thing built for Sparc 32-bit and 64-bit and Intel I will
package it up and release on www.blastwave.org. It will probably end up
on the Sun Companion Software CD which ships with the Solaris 9 and 10
media kits.
when I get it working ... ;)
dennis
dcl### [at] blastwaveorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just want to let you know that I have side-slipped the doc SUBDIR also and
have not hit a tiff problem, but, be thankful that you were using gcc to do
the compile as the Forte 6U2 compilers and tools have a fit with those
Makefiles!
thus :
Making all in src
gmake[1]: Entering directory
`/export/medusa/dclarke/build/sparc/povray-3.50c/src'
c++ -DPREFIX=\"/opt/csw\" -DPOV_LIB_DIR=\"/opt/csw/share/povray-3.5\"
-DCOMPILER_VER=\".Linux.cc\" -DSYSCONFDIR=\"/opt/csw/etc\"
-DUSE_IO_RESTRICTIONS=\"\" -I/opt/csw/include `if [ "Xcc" = "Xgcc" ]; then
echo "-Wno-multichar"; fi ` -O3 -finline-functions -ffast-math
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations -malign-double
-foptimize-sibling-calls -minline-all-stringops -Wno-multichar -c atmosph.cpp
cc1plus: Invalid option `align-double'
cc1plus: Invalid option `inline-all-stringops'
cc1plus: Invalid option `-foptimize-sibling-calls'
gmake[1]: *** [atmosph.o] Error 1
gmake[1]: Leaving directory
`/export/medusa/dclarke/build/sparc/povray-3.50c/src'
gmake: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
--------- foobar options for real Sun/Forte cc -------------
What I am doing is doing a find for every Makefile that has been created and
then manually edited them ( there are 73 Makefiles ) such that the CFLAGS are
correct for Sun/Forte with a few basic optimizations.
fun fun fun ... :-P
Dennis Clarke
dcl### [at] blastwaveorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Compile problems povray 3.50c and Solaris 8 x86
Date: 31 Mar 2003 04:13:15
Message: <3e8806ab@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.0303302337490.25621@blastwave> , Dennis Clarke
<dcl### [at] blastwaveorg> wrote:
> 64-bit
be aware that you cannot build a fully working 64 bit version of POV-Ray
3.50 without source code changes.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.0303302337490.25621@blastwave> , Dennis Clarke
><dcl### [at] blastwaveorg> wrote:
>
>> 64-bit
>
>be aware that you cannot build a fully working 64 bit version of POV-Ray
>3.50 without source code changes.
>
> Thorsten
thank you for the alert, you probably saved me a lot of time.
At the moment I have a few library problems and the compiler issues a million
warnings about multi-byte constants. Not exactly portable code.
in any case .. I had it running at about 02:00AM last night but it was dog
slow on the UltraSparc. I trying to render the benchmark.pov with -Q9 and
a number of other options that were not in the readme section of the
benchmark.pov scene file. That was a mistake. It took an hour for the first
50 pixel lines of a 640x480 image. Not so good. It also used up 15Mb of
memory to generate that sort of performance.
I have more than a few hours of work ahead of me I see ...
Item number 6 below is a real problem. That should not be there.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------------------------
bash-2.03$ dump -Lv src/povray
src/povray:
**** DYNAMIC SECTION INFORMATION ****
.dynamic:
[INDEX] Tag Value
[1] NEEDED libtiff.so
[2] NEEDED libjpeg.so.62
[3] NEEDED libpng.so.3
[4] NEEDED libz.so.1
[5] NEEDED libX11.so.4
[6] NEEDED libstdc++.so.2.10.0
[7] NEEDED libm.so.1
[8] NEEDED libc.so.1
[9] INIT 0xf51cc
[10] FINI 0xf51e8
[11] RUNPATH /opt/csw/lib:/usr/openwin/lib
[12] RPATH /opt/csw/lib:/usr/openwin/lib
[13] HASH 0x100e8
[14] STRTAB 0x18d78
[15] STRSZ 0x9549
[16] SYMTAB 0x12fc8
[17] SYMENT 0x10
[18] CHECKSUM 0xb00f
[19] VERNEED 0x222c4
[20] VERNEEDNUM 0x4
[21] PLTSZ 0x894
[22] PLTREL 0x7
[23] JMPREL 0x22398
[24] RELA 0x22344
[25] RELASZ 0x8e8
[26] RELAENT 0xc
[27] DEBUG 0
[28] FEATURE_1 PARINIT
[29] FLAGS 0
[30] FLAGS_1 0
[31] PLTGOT 0x119934
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|