Thanks Lars, If I look at the contents of rad5R1supp.tar.gz <https://www.radiance-online.org/download-install/radiance-source-code/latest-release/radR51supp.tar.gz> (I would look at the equivalent for 5.0, the version I am targeting, but it doesn't seem to exist - it looks like core and auxiliary files are bundled together in
rad5R0all.tar.gz <https://www.radiance-online.org/download-install/radiance-source-code/archived-releases/radiance-5.0/rad5R0all.tar.gz>), I see the following: doc 102KB lib 371 MB obj 2.6MB src 9.3 MB src just contains px/tiff, which you explained I can exclude doc is just documentation so can be excluded lib is the large one - what do you mean when you say "You may also remove all the example files from the lib directory" - can the whole directory be excluded? what about the obj directory? You didn't mention it: can all of it be excluded? It contains the following subdirectories: alpha cabin misc office texture virtual Also, in a context in which I am only running binaries oconv and rtrace, is it the case that none of the auxiliary files are needed? If not, which ones are needed? Your help with the above would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Philip On 6 April 2018 at 12:43, Lars O. Grobe <gr...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Philip, > > as far as I understand you, the aim is to get a minimalistic Radiance > rendering node. For that, I would propose to exclude all the X11, tcl-tk > and tiff stuff. You will probably not work interactively on the node but > get the results transferred to a local work-station, where you could do all > file conversion and display work. You may also remove all the example files > from the lib directory. The question is how to best implement all this in a > makefile, so that you do not get all the errors. I have to admit that the > many build systems around in Radiance are confusing... Maybe editing the > rmakefiles, and setting up a new target such as "minimal-install" would be > a good start. > > Cheers, Lars. > > Hello, > > should I be concerned about the fact that installing libX11 and > libX11-devel seems to have been sufficient in order to eliminate the > X11-related compilation errors? > > I expected to also have to change the -L option to point to /usr/lib64 in > the following > > set mach="-Dlinux -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -L/usr/X11R6/lib > -I/usr/include/X11 -DNOSTEREO" > > That's because I don't have a /usr/X11R6/lib directory (but I have some > X11 files in /usr/lib64 instead, due to having installed libX11). > I didn't expect to have to edit the -I option because I do have a > /usr/include/X11 > directory, due to having installed libX11-devel. > > Thoughts? > > Also, our application uses Radiance in headless mode (no UI). > Am I right in thinking that whilst installing X11 is necessary in order to > get a clean build, many of the resulting binaries can be run without X11. > > E.g. am I right in thinking that I can run oconv and rtrace without X11? > > Is there some resource that can be used to determine which Radiance > binaries rely on X11 and which don't? > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Philip Schwarz > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Radiance-dev mailing > listRadiance-dev@radiance-online.orghttps://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Radiance-dev mailing list > Radiance-dev@radiance-online.org > https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Radiance-dev mailing list Radiance-dev@radiance-online.org https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev
