search

TACC / pvOSPRay

Other
9 stars 4 forks source link

documentation error(?) #3

Open ingowald opened 9 years ago

ingowald commented 9 years ago

The "building" section on https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay talks about getting a) a relatively old version of ospray, and b) ispc-1.8.0.

Shouldn't we be using newer versions of both?

carsonbrownlee commented 9 years ago

Good question, I was talking to GregP about this yesterday. Actually, the current dev release in pvOSPRay won’t compile with the latest master release of OSPRay due to several additions made by GregP for our needs and it sounds like the next master release won’t be until after our code freeze. For release, should we peg the current devel release of OSPRay? Carson

On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Ingo Wald notifications@github.com wrote:

The "building" section on https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay talks about getting a) a relatively old version of ospray, and b) ispc-1.8.0.

Shouldn't we be using newer versions of both?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay/issues/3.

carsonbrownlee commented 9 years ago

For those not on the con call this week, I am in the process of migrating all tickets over to the github issue tracking. Please use the GitHut pages below for any future error reporting:

ingowald commented 9 years ago

You can always use the respective git-hash of the ospray version you are using (the page already refers to a hash, just to a probably very old one).

Once we release 1.8.2 we can then change the doc to point to release-v1.8.2 rather than a specific hash.

Ingo

On 07/17/2015 12:14 PM, carsonbrownlee wrote:

Good question, I was talking to GregP about this yesterday. Actually, the current dev release in pvOSPRay won’t compile with the latest master release of OSPRay due to several additions made by GregP for our needs and it sounds like the next master release won’t be until after our code freeze. For release, should we peg the current devel release of OSPRay? Carson

On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Ingo Wald notifications@github.com wrote:

The "building" section on https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay talks about getting a) a relatively old version of ospray, and b) ispc-1.8.0.

Shouldn't we be using newer versions of both?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay/issues/3.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay/issues/3#issuecomment-122345945.

carsonbrownlee commented 9 years ago

that’s what I meant by peg, I just wanted to be sure there would be no unforeseen issues with pointing to a devel release. Is there a particularly stable devel release we should point to? Carson

On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ingo Wald notifications@github.com wrote:

You can always use the respective git-hash of the ospray version you are using (the page already refers to a hash, just to a probably very old one).

Once we release 1.8.2 we can then change the doc to point to release-v1.8.2 rather than a specific hash.

Ingo

On 07/17/2015 12:14 PM, carsonbrownlee wrote:

Good question, I was talking to GregP about this yesterday. Actually, the current dev release in pvOSPRay won’t compile with the latest master release of OSPRay due to several additions made by GregP for our needs and it sounds like the next master release won’t be until after our code freeze. For release, should we peg the current devel release of OSPRay? Carson

On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Ingo Wald notifications@github.com wrote:

The "building" section on https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay talks about getting a) a relatively old version of ospray, and b) ispc-1.8.0.

Shouldn't we be using newer versions of both?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay/issues/3.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay/issues/3#issuecomment-122345945.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay/issues/3#issuecomment-122347556.

chriscarex commented 8 years ago

Hi, I'm trying to build pvOSPRay from source and I am having some difficulties on the paraview5 ccmake .. step. Is paraview 5.0.1 isok or I should stick to 5.0.0? Also, it would be good to have a binary installation for Ubuntu! Thanks, Christian

carsonbrownlee commented 8 years ago

hi Christian, 5.0.1 is ideal, and the paraview binaries for 5.0.1 already include pvOSPRay. Do their binaries not work with ubuntu? We haven't tried beyond Centos. What issues are you having with cmake? I'm guessing it may be an issue with changes to the ospray release, which branch of ospray are you building off of? Carson

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:03 PM, chriscarex notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi, I'm trying to build pvOSPRay from source and I am having some difficulties on the paraview5 ccmake .. step. Is paraview 5.0.1 isok or I should stick to 5.0.0? Also, it would be good to have a binary installation for Ubuntu! Thanks, Christian

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/TACC/pvOSPRay/issues/3#issuecomment-212538069

chriscarex commented 8 years ago

Hi Carson, so I unzipped the binaries in Ubuntu 14.04 and when launching ./paraview in the bin folder I got the following error:

/home/chris/PV4_3_pvOSPRay_linux_x86_64/lib/paraview-4.3/paraview: error while loading shared libraries: libpython2.6.so.1.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I tweaked by pointing to libpython2.7 and then followed this https://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=49833 to avoid the next error, but got stuck here:

/home/chris/pvOSPRayparaview/install/lib/paraview-4.4/paraview: error while loading shared libraries: libirng.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I guess I can solve it by downloading the Intel ifort package which is not free, if anyone can tell me where to get the required libraries otherwise that would be great!