POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.beta-test : Technical verification build "v3.8.0-beta.666" : Re: Technical verification build "v3.8.0-beta.667" Server Time
27 Nov 2022 21:44:23 EST (-0500)
  Re: Technical verification build "v3.8.0-beta.667"  
From: Kenneth
Date: 24 Jun 2021 05:05:00
Message: <web.60d449a86db43e65d98418916e066e29@news.povray.org>
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 18.06.2021 um 20:43 schrieb clipka:
> > If you're feeling particularly bold and daring, feel free to test-drive
> > this INSTALLER for us:
> Well, turns out the binaries will not identify as anything - nor
> actually _do_ anything at all, for not really well-explained reasons.
> Which is a bit disappointing on a couple of levels.
> The binaries in the following installer should be a bit better-behaved,
> obediently identifying as "v3.8.0-beta.667" - otherwise same deal:
> https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/releases/tag/v3.8.0-pre-beta.667

Hi, Christoph! It is great to see you back on the newsgroups; you have been
missed indeed. I did read your initial/'new'  post from May 2021-- but only last
night! :-0  Welcome back!

I've been away from the newsgroups and POV-Ray for several months myself; 'real
life' got in the way, as it usually does.


I'm running Windows 10 Pro, pre-installed on my new Lenovo desktop computer (8
cores/16 threads). Windows 10.0.19041 (build 19041)

I just tried installing the 667 beta. It appears to load all of its appropriate
files into its own folders in the the correct places, both  in "Documents" and
in C:Program Files\POV-ray\  Unfortunately, although the program does start
successfully, it doesn't actually do anything. (The only thing that works is the
main HELP file.)

There seems to be a problem with the separately-downloaded  'editor' component.
At least, the beta  seems to need that, and an info box comes up asking for it
to be downloaded before the beta will start. And curiously, as soon as I clicked
the 'yes' box there to go to the 'editor'  webpage, the beta automatically
started up! Odd but interesting.

The problem *seems* to be that the beta's main installer is directing us to a
webpage with the wrong 'editor' executable-- for 3.7 rather than 3.8.  The URL
of that webpage looks to be correct:


.... but the only editor available there is for "version (released 6
November 2013)"

I tried installing that one anyway, but I think  it attempted to load its DLL's
into my 3.7.0 folder (however,  its own install process said the DLL files were
'skipped', so I don't think they were installed, and didn't over-write what may
have already been in my 3.7 folders.)

So at this point, it looks like the 667 beta *installed* OK, but there's no
'editor' to make it work. (BTW, I ran into the same problem earlier this year,
when trying to download and run v3.7.1 beta 9 again; the separate editor
component didn't work this time, strangely. But maybe that's off-topic here.)

Also, for what it's worth, the 667 beta installation does not seem to mess with
my v3.7.0 version; I just fired it up (actually running one of the piggybacked
3.8xx experimental versions with it), and all seems well; no problems that I've
noticed so far.

I have not yet tried to UN-install the 667 beta; I thought I would wait to see
if the 'proper' editor download is available and hiding somewhere...  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2021 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.