I kind of have serious doubts about a 'large' studio who would not be able to build its own Blender?
Anyway, I’m sorry for vfxplatform, but they can’t really be taken seriously… C++11 with gcc4.8 [1]? Python2? Integrating 'latest' (!!! sic) FBX in that list, which is everything but a standard, and changes randomly in incompatible ways without any notice or control from everybody but AD? Come on… To me vfxplatforms looks like something made by the CG industry for the CG industry - which is fine if they need it, but would not feel compelled to follow that… thing. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html Le 01/10/2016 à 14:32, Brian Savery a écrit : > http://www.vfxplatform.com/ the one point I'd make is that the vfx industry > "standard" for Linux installs specifies glibc 2.12 so in a lot of studios > you'll see centos 6.8 or 7. Yes that is very old. But if you remove a > build compatible with that you can pretty much guarantee larger studios > won't be able to use blender. > > Our release environment which is based on glibc-2.11 is getting far too old >> and unmaintainable and already causes major problems getting some branches >> to compile. >> >> I plan to discontinue this builder with the next round of dependencies >> update. >> >> The default (and only) supported glibc version will be 2.19 (and above). >> > > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
