 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
> 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).
>
> (C) Beta Releases
> =================
>
> In order to allow for installing a beta release while also keeping an
> earlier final release of the same generation (e.g. v3.7.0 proper and
> v3.7.1-beta.1), beta releases are intended to live in their own happy
> place, without interfering with any non-beta versions (but replacing or
> interfering with other betas of the same generation).
>
>
> (D) Development (Alpha) Releases
> ================================
>
> While all of the above come with an installer...
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.
But that seems to go against the idea that betas always(?) come with their own
installer. Sorry to throw a small monkey-wrench into the discussion, but this
particular situation is a bit mysterious. Or maybe I'm simply misreading your
beta release info.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 01.09.2018 um 22:09 schrieb Kenneth:
> > 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]"?
I did the usual trick of removing (sequestering) the original 3.7.0 pvengine64
file and simply dropping in the beta4 version of the file instead (all within
the 3.7.0 folder, or rather 3.7; I also have a separate 3.7 beta 9 folder.)
Seems to run just fine. I don't *remember* it being a 'stand-alone'/installable
version when I downloaded it. (I *hope* that I would have noticed that!) But
I'll take another look at the Github download page for the beta4 version, to see
if I screwed up.
I guess you mean that the beta4 is/was supposed to be a 'complete' standalone
install, like 3.7.1 beta 9. Makes me wonder why or how it works in my scheme,
when apparently it shouldn't! (BTW, I did double-check the running program to
make sure it IS beta4 that I'm running. AND to make sure that the beta4 engine
is indeed in my 3.7 folder and not in my 3.7 beta 9 folder by mistake.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> I did the usual trick of removing (sequestering) the original 3.7.0 pvengine64
> file and simply dropping in the beta4 version of the file instead (all within
> the 3.7.0 folder, or rather 3.7; I also have a separate 3.7 beta 9 folder.)
> Seems to run just fine.
Here's a little caveat though, which just occured to me: On my desktop, I have a
"POV-ray 3.7.0" shorcut (icon) which I always use to start it (regardless of the
*particular* pvengine64 file that I'm currently running there-- the original, or
various alphas, or beta4.) I've never changed that shorcut (meaning, as I remove
or drop in various pvengines to test things, I don't make a 'new' shorcut for
the current version; it never seems to be necessary.) But the shortcut still
starts up the correct current pvengine (as I can see when querying POV-Ray's
'Help/About POV-ray for Windows' menu.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 01.09.2018 um 22:09 schrieb Kenneth:
>
> > > 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
> > - How do you install it into "an existing 3.7.0 [installation]"?
>
Well, from looking at Github, I see that beta4 is/was indeed a 'complete'
install, not a simple drop-in 'pvengine'. I have no idea how I actually obtained
*just* the engine itself-- I must have downloaded and installed the complete
package, then 'extracted' the engine file to use (with 3.7.0) while discarding
the rest, in some fit of madness or ignorance. :-O But it works, strangely (or
*appears* to!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.09.2018 um 05:34 schrieb Kenneth:
>>>> 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
>
>>> - How do you install it into "an existing 3.7.0 [installation]"?
>>
>
> Well, from looking at Github, I see that beta4 is/was indeed a 'complete'
> install, not a simple drop-in 'pvengine'. I have no idea how I actually obtained
> *just* the engine itself-- I must have downloaded and installed the complete
> package, then 'extracted' the engine file to use (with 3.7.0) while discarding
> the rest, in some fit of madness or ignorance. :-O But it works, strangely (or
> *appears* to!)
I've just taken a few minutes to dig a bit deeper, and it seems that
binaries can be used in three different modes:
(A) Stand-alone - in this mode, the binary maintains its own registry
entry and has its own support files.
(B) Piggyback - in this mode, the binary shares both the registry entry
and support files with another binary.
(C) Semi-Piggyback - in this mode, the binary maintains its own registry
entry but shares support files with another binary.
Only modes (A) and (B) are really intentional, with (A) being the
intended mode if the binaries are from different "generations" or one is
a beta and the other isn't, and (B) being the intended mode for alpha
releases.
Mode (C) _can_ indeed be achieved by dropping a "raw" binary into an
existing installation that differs in "generation" and/or beta status,
_if_ no version of same "generation" and beta status is currently
installed. (If such a version is installed, the dropped-in binary will
enter into mode (B) with that version, despite the binary being located
elsewhere.)
There is one very big caveat to this however: This will totally screw up
any subsequent proper installation of the dropped-in version (or any
other version of same generation and beta status); such a subsequent
installation will fail to enter mode (A), and continue to share support
files with that other installation, while its own support files will lie
dormant.
Uninstalling and re-installing would probably solve this problem.
Another thing worth mentioning in this context is that the location of a
binary doesn't matter at all - except in the process to enter mode (C).
During normal operation, a binary will find its support files through
the registry, not through its own location.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> I've just taken a few minutes to dig a bit deeper, and it seems that
> binaries can be used in three different modes:
> ....
>
> There is one very big caveat to this however: This will totally screw up
> any subsequent proper installation of the dropped-in version (or any
> other version of same generation and beta status...
To be safe, I'll re-install a clean v3.7.0 (and discard the offending beta4.) I
can only hope that I haven't screwed up my registry in some way.
Thanks for the detective work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.09.2018 um 17:03 schrieb Kenneth:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've just taken a few minutes to dig a bit deeper, and it seems that
>> binaries can be used in three different modes:
>> ....
>>
>> There is one very big caveat to this however: This will totally screw up
>> any subsequent proper installation of the dropped-in version (or any
>> other version of same generation and beta status...
>
> To be safe, I'll re-install a clean v3.7.0 (and discard the offending beta4.) I
> can only hope that I haven't screwed up my registry in some way.
Just for the records: It's the v3.7-beta installation you've screwed up,
not the v3.7 proper installation. There /may/ have been interference
from the beta, but I doubt it.
And re-installing v3.7 proper won't clean up the v3.7-beta detritus. So
should you ever again install a v3.7-beta, even if you use the proper
installer, and even if you now un-install and re-install v3.7.0, that
beta will /again/ interfere with the v3.7.0.
A proper install of the /beta/, followed by an uninstall of it, should
be the way to clean up this issue.
Or run "regedit" and throw out `HKCU\Software\POV-Ray\v3.7-beta` and/or
`HKLM/Software/POV-Ray/v3.7-beta`.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
> Am 30.08.2018 um 21:38 schrieb jr:
> > ... the keys of a dictionary? ...
another question regarding dictionaries.
I try (in a to be included file):
#local A = array [4] { ... };
...
#declare D = dictionary {
.arr: (A),
...
};
and get a "Parse Error: Expected 'numeric expression', array identifier found
instead"
when I try
.arr: A,
I get a parse error in the using scene: "Attempt to access uninitialised
dictionary element". (3.8.0-alpha.9606898) can arrays not be used in a
dictionary?
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 02.09.2018 um 17:03 schrieb Kenneth:
>
> Just for the records: It's the v3.7-beta installation you've screwed up,
> not the v3.7 proper installation...
>
> A proper install of the /beta/, followed by an uninstall of it, should
> be the way to clean up this issue.
>
> Or run "regedit" and throw out `HKCU\Software\POV-Ray\v3.7-beta` and/or
> `HKLM/Software/POV-Ray/v3.7-beta`.
Thanks a bunch for the clarification! I may go both routes, if I can get up the
gumption to monkey around with the registry ;-)
Seems that I did something really dumb... :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
