POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.programming : A povr tarball for Unix/Linux. : Re: A povr tarball for Unix/Linux. Server Time
14 Apr 2024 03:57:04 EDT (-0400)
  Re: A povr tarball for Unix/Linux.  
From: jr
Date: 10 Jul 2020 15:20:00
Message: <web.5f08bdced1e52a784d00143e0@news.povray.org>

William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> On 7/10/20 11:12 AM, jr wrote:
> > "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I'll play some more in the week, then post a list of .. issues.
> > ...
> Thanks! The first and likely the second issue(2) are the same problem.
> ...
> I believe the issue now fixed in my code.

looking forward to your posting an updated version.

> (1) - Related. I am taking a run at no longer installing .conf and ini
> defaults in a user's HOME directory. Doing this makes it hard to run
> several POV-Ray versions side by side - though I have hacks to do it.

agree that a user 'povray.conf' is not needed/useful.

feel different about the 'povray.ini', find it convenient to have a set of
defaults, for that login, which I can override on a case-by-case basis.  (could
you not install a 'povr.ini' in '~/.povray/3.8/'?  would get round the naming

> (2) - It might also be this second case is some actual incompatibility.
> I've made changes so more often the code will kick out the actual
> offending identifiers to make things easier to debug. On removal of old
> keywords, for example the errors should complain about the specific
> keyword. It's obviously still not reporting the identifier in your case.

I'll be happy to try that scene again, after installing the update.

> ...
> (*) - It's a hack at the moment, but I do have a povrTextDocumentation
> directory in the root compilation directoy which includes primarily
> areas of povr different than POV-Ray. If something exists there, it
> behaves differently in some way from the official POV-Ray. The
> exceptions to this rule in the inbuilt function changes are all
> documented in functions.inc and the density file stuff is on the wiki.

ok.  I had hoped for something included in the tarball.

and another "rant" :-), this time regarding the install locations.

what is wrong with '/usr/local/doc/'?  what is the rationale for
'/usr/local/share/doc/' and '/usr/local/share/man/'?  it cannot be the "shared"
aspect, because then, logically, other shared directories would belong there
too, eg '/usr/local/share/bin/'!  plain weird.  (and yes, I know it's an Ubuntu
thing, not your decision, per se)

regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

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