hi,

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 12.05.2021 um 15:20 schrieb jr:
>
> > no one mentioned using/creating a (shell, etc) script to build yet, I think, so
> > that'd be my advice.
>
> Just throwing in a couple of $0.02 here:
>
> We are intentionally NOT delivering a single shell script, because...
>
> (1) This is a Unix version of POV-Ray, not specifically a Linux version.
>
> (2) Although there are some well-established standards on Linux machines
> by now, it is never guaranteed that a particular Linux machine uses,
> say, apt for package management.

"...there is really precious little clear, methodical,
detailed information on how to install povray on a linux system, that is right
here on the POV-Ray website".  this comment by BE started off the thread.
you're right, UNIX != Linux, perhaps even more so for Debian derived stuff than
for others.

re providing build script(s) -- makes things repeatable, with little effort.
what's not to like?


> (3) What we really want is that magic
>
>      sudo apt-get install povray
>
> as the sole installation instructions for POV-Ray. That command, or
> whatever equivalent may happen to work on your Linux distribution. Or
> whatever equivalent mouse click may make that same magic happen. In
> other words, our hope is that package maintainers for the various Linux
> distributions will (continue to) "adopt" POV-Ray and compile it into
> packages custom-tailored to fit the conventions of those very distributions.

why would anyone want 'apt' installed, if others package managers work equally
well?  by making the process depend on a specific Linux how would that help?


> The current steps of installing POV-Ray from the GitHub package has the
> following components, which all have their specific place and reason for
> being separate:
>
> (1) Acquire the POV-Ray source code package.
> ...
> (2) `prebuild.sh`
> ...
> (3) Install any of the necessary prerequisites for you
> ...
> (4) `configure`, `make` (or `make check`) and/or `make install`
>
> This sequence of commands is THE leading de-factor standard in the Unix
> world wherever software is still installed from source code (as opposed
> to via package managers), period.

one could argue that (2) and (3) should be reversed.  agree on (4), how does
embedding that sequence (steps 2+4) in a script present "a problem"?


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message