"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> "The Traveler" <jho### [at] northrimnet> wrote:
> > Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > > ... in one case because POV-Ray compiled to completion even though a
> > > prereq dev library was among those yanked away by a distro upgrade.
> > > ...
> > > Speaking of which, why did I have to recompile anything in the first
> > > place?  I didn't have to recompile 3.5 or 3.6 or MegaPOV.  But POV-Ray
> > > 3.7, 3.8-beta, the master branch, and UberPOV all choked on incompatible
> > > library versions, for more than one upgrade.  Is there some way to build
> > > POV-Ray for Unix/Linux so that I don't have to recompile the damn things
> > > every time I do an OS upgrade?  This is not a workable system!
> >
> > I have the same conundrum. I tinker with my Ubuntu-based distro constantly so
> > recompiling povray is second nature now. This is my install loadout on Lubuntu:
>
> could either (or both) of you using the "wrong" command sequence when
> updating/upgrading?  not familiar enough with 'apt' but the package manager
> definitely should be able to add a new library without removing an existing; for
> instance, I have libpng libraries for three versions on the same machine -- that
> is what .so version numbers are for.
>
>
> > > So it looks like OpenEXR was the last library that I didn't have.  N.B.
> > > I also had to install openexr-devel to get EXR to work in POV-Ray.
>
> "sane" operating environments do not split packages into -dev, -doc, whatever.
> ;-)
>
>
> regards, jr.

Hi jr,
" ... could either (or both) of you using the "wrong" command sequence when
updating/upgrading?"

Nah. I've been a linux user (hacker) since Slackware back in '95 (I built my
first company, an Internet Service Provider, on it in that same year). I just
break stuff. I do a lot of kernel and driver hacking and generally end up at
some point with a borked system. I also like to investigate the pre-release
stuff in non-LTS distro releases and chase down bugs.

""sane" operating environments do not split packages into -dev, -doc, whatever."

Heh, they do in my book. Why would one need all the development code and the
docs for it if all they were doing is end-user stuff? That's why Windows was
created ... ;)

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message