 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When 3.1 has been available for quite a while?
Is it the POV maintainers' fault? Laziness on the part of the Linux
distributors? Both?
--
Francois Labreque | Make you a deal, I'll show you mine if you show
flabreque | me yours.
@ |
videotron.ca | - Pandora.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> When 3.1 has been available for quite a while?
>
> Is it the POV maintainers' fault? Laziness on the part of the Linux
> distributors? Both?
>
Perhaps they think 3.1 is the unstable development brach for POV-Ray 3.2
;)
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peak eduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The only distro that I know of that still distributes a 3.02-based
POV-Ray is Debian, which ships something based on an older version of
PVMPOV. POV-Ray is, by Debian standards, "non-free" (notably in that
there are some restrictions on sale and code reuse), which is probably
why Debian doesn't consider it an especially high priority.
-Mark Gordon
Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> When 3.1 has been available for quite a while?
>
> Is it the POV maintainers' fault? Laziness on the part of the Linux
> distributors? Both?
>
> --
> Francois Labreque | Make you a deal, I'll show you mine if you show
> flabreque | me yours.
> @ |
> videotron.ca | - Pandora.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jean-Michel Grimaldi
Subject: Re: Why do Linux distros still package POV 3.02?
Date: 23 Apr 2001 21:04:46
Message: <3AE4D100.F8FAEE96@via.ecp.fr>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Gordon wrote:
>
> POV-Ray is, by Debian standards, "non-free" (notably in that
> there are some restrictions on sale and code reuse), which is probably
> why Debian doesn't consider it an especially high priority.
Explanations from the maintainer of the package:
http://www.infodrom.ffis.de/Debian/events/LinuxTag1999/list/1999/0271.html
--
JM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Gordon wrote:
>
> The only distro that I know of that still distributes a 3.02-based
> POV-Ray is Debian,
So does Caldera 2.4, which is what I got. Anyway, Ive downloaded the
last POV-Ray and MegaPOV available. All that's left to do is to brush
up on my emacs skills.
... and getting X, my token-ring card and kernel 2.4.3 to play nice
together.
--
Francois Labreque | Make you a deal, I'll show you mine if you show
flabreque | me yours.
@ |
videotron.ca | - Pandora.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Rick [Kitty5]
Subject: Re: Why do Linux distros still package POV 3.02?
Date: 24 Apr 2001 08:08:19
Message: <3ae56cb3@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Explanations from the maintainer of the package:
> http://www.infodrom.ffis.de/Debian/events/LinuxTag1999/list/1999/0271.html
sounds like another good reason not to debain - suse or mandrake all they
way.
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 02:50:44 +0100, Rick [Kitty5] wrote:
>
>> Explanations from the maintainer of the package:
>> http://www.infodrom.ffis.de/Debian/events/LinuxTag1999/list/1999/0271.html
>
>sounds like another good reason not to debain - suse or mandrake all they
>way.
Bah! What kind of sysadmin trusts other peoples' packages anyway?
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yea, but this post is nearly 2 years old, and there are version of
MegaPov that also support PVM. Hence, in the last 2 years, the argument is
now moot. Just for giggles, I'm CCing him. Not really sure if hes still an
active maintainer or not..
"Jean-Michel Grimaldi" <jm### [at] viaecpfr> wrote in message
news:3AE4D100.F8FAEE96@via.ecp.fr...
> Mark Gordon wrote:
> >
> > POV-Ray is, by Debian standards, "non-free" (notably in that
> > there are some restrictions on sale and code reuse), which is probably
> > why Debian doesn't consider it an especially high priority.
>
> Explanations from the maintainer of the package:
> http://www.infodrom.ffis.de/Debian/events/LinuxTag1999/list/1999/0271.html
>
> --
> JM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I actually got a message back from the package maintainer.. It's simply
becouse he isn;t interested in Pov any more, and no other maintainer has
stepped up to the plate..
"Jean-Michel Grimaldi" <jm### [at] viaecpfr> wrote in message
news:3AE4D100.F8FAEE96@via.ecp.fr...
> Mark Gordon wrote:
> >
> > POV-Ray is, by Debian standards, "non-free" (notably in that
> > there are some restrictions on sale and code reuse), which is probably
> > why Debian doesn't consider it an especially high priority.
>
> Explanations from the maintainer of the package:
> http://www.infodrom.ffis.de/Debian/events/LinuxTag1999/list/1999/0271.html
>
> --
> JM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
