No, don’t really have any numbers. Not using RHEL nor CentOS here. Just wanted to point out that one major distro was still on a glibc older than 2.19 I agree fully with the initial message, 2.11 is too old, squeeze is becoming more of a burden to maintain. 2.19 just seems too much of a jump but have no issues with it either. Systems here are up to date and I compile blender myself.
Cheers, On 02 Oct 2016, at 17:15, Sergey Sharybin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > The whole topic here is only about how we compile binaries for blender.org. > Everyone will still be able to compile Blender on whatever system they use. > It is just becoming real PITA to support such oldie base systems. > > To my knowledge Blender's binaries aren't compatible with majority of RHEL > used on render farms and studios and their TDs are already compiling > Blender themselves. So (again, to my knowledge) there is no "regression" > here. > > Personally, i find all this vfxplatforms discussion more a speculation. Do > we have some real numbers? Like, are there studios on RHEL who really use > Blender? Are they managing to run official Blender binaries? > > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Francesc Juhe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It’s not really inconsistent, it’s just having those 'bleeding edge' libs >> on top of RHEL 6.7 and derivatives as a base, which is old. >> If vfxplatform was based on latest RHEL, the requirements would be glibc >> 2.17 but even that would be below 2.19 >> >> >> On 02 Oct 2016, at 16:23, Bastien Montagne <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Am not reproaching them to be conservative, but to be inconsistent. On >>> one side you have bleeding edge things (ptex, openvdb, alembic, and the >>> hilarious 'lastest' FBX), on the others, years old basis like gcc4.8 or >>> glibc2.13. Not to mention to ask for a compiler that only has >>> *experimental* support of required c++ version… >>> >>> Note that this would not prevent building blender over glibc2.13 imho, >>> people just might have to disable some features. Here we are talking >>> about official builds from Blender themselves only. >>> >>> Le 02/10/2016 à 16:08, Brian Savery a écrit : >>>>> I kind of have serious doubts about a 'large' studio who would not be >>>>> able to build its own Blender? >>>>> >>>>> I would agree, but if blender won't build for centos 6/ Rhel you can >>>> pretty much guarantee they won't use it, which is unfortunate. >>>> >>>> And yes there are definitely some outdated things on that list but it >>>> definitely is taken seriously in the industry. And as others have said >> you >>>> do see many "conservative" oses. Up until a few releases ago we had to >>>> provide a rhel4 build of prman if I remember correctly. >>>> >>>> Anyway just something to be aware of not trying to throw a monkey >> wrench in >>>> anything. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bf-committers mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > > > -- > With best regards, Sergey Sharybin > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
