POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.beta-test : POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9811560 : Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9811560 Server Time
28 Apr 2024 17:33:48 EDT (-0400)
  Re: POV-Ray v3.8.0-alpha.9811560  
From: clipka
Date: 1 Sep 2018 20:15:01
Message: <5b8b2b85$1@news.povray.org>
Am 01.09.2018 um 22:09 schrieb Kenneth:

>> The plan is as follows (for Windows at any rate):
>>
> Thanks for the excellent description and detail of the various releases and what
> they mean. You probably posted some of this before (but which had not yet
> impinged on my brain, I admit).

I may have mentioned some of it, maybe; but only in passing.


> I'm still just a little confused about this: I have an older 3.7.1 beta
> release...
>              3.7.1-beta.4+msvc14.win64
> ..... that *AFAIK* is supposed to be installed into "an existing 3.7.0 binary"
> (piggybacked, in other words.) I just tested this again, and the scheme works.

- Says who?
- How do you install it into "an existing 3.7.0 [installation]"?
- No; ever since v3.7.1-beta.2, it was intended to install in a separate
directory; the only exception was v3.7.1-beta.1, and that was by
mistake, and the reason that beta was never actually made public.


> BTW, my idea of using only ONE 'master' POVRAY.INI file for *all* releases was
> rather half-formed; sorry about that. I had a panicky notion that there were
> *multitudes* of those INI files in various places, that had to be dealt with--
> but of course that's not the case. (On my system, there are only two-- for my
> 3.7 and 3.7.1 beta 9 installs.) In any case, for such a scheme to work, I would
> need to make the one master file, place it *somwewhere* (permanently), then make
> Windows  'shortcuts' to place into the respective POV-Ray 'bin' folders. Being
> the curious person that I am, I actually tried that. It doesn't work (as I
> suspected) but I'm wondering why. Are 'non-functioning' shortcuts a general
> Windows limitation for ALL such 'configuration files', or is it something
> specific to POV-Ray by design? I'm certainly no expert about this stuff, which
> is why I ask.

I would suspect that it has something to do with Windows shortcuts not
really being proper links - not even soft links.

BTW, Windows /can/ manage genuine hard and soft links, and they work far
more reliably. But you need to use shell commands or 3rd party tools to
create them.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.