LuxRender v0.7.1 Release

[ZanQdo]

I'm getting this error on launch (lin 32)

Code: Select all

./luxrender: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by ./luxrender)

i got glibc 2.9 (inc dev)

can this libs be compiled static please?

cheers!

[SATtva]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but libc (namely libc.a) cannot be linked statically unless there are any dynamic links left -- you'll still need libc.so of the right version.

[Olliebrown]

I'm getting this error on launch (lin 32)

Code: Select all

./luxrender: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by ./luxrender)

i got glibc 2.9 (inc dev)

can this libs be compiled static please?

cheers!

On Ubuntu 8.04.3 (hardy) I get something similar:

Code: Select all

./luxconsole: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.8' not found (required by ./luxconsole)
./luxconsole: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by ./luxconsole)

My glibc version is:

Code: Select all

/lib/libc.so.6 | head -1
GNU C Library stable release version 2.7, by Roland McGrath et al.

LuxRender 0.7 is okay with this version. Unfortunately, these computers are owned and operated by the university where I am merely a grad student so I do not have means or authority to have them upgraded or to get a newer version of glibc installed without a very good reason. That being said, I'm not 100% sure they are stock Hardy installations but I would think, with respect to glibc they should be.

In any case, it would seem the version of GLIBC being used to compile Lux on linux changed between 0.7 and 0.7.1. While Ubuntu Hardy is certainly a bit outdated, I think it's still a system worth supporting (given it's LTS status), especially if there is (as I would suspect) nothing to be gained from linking against newer glibc's ... well nothing besides stability and security ... which is great, but comes at a cost.

Not a huge deal, I'm happy using 0.7 but thought I'd offer my 10 cents.

Seth

[tomb]

Its just a matter of someone stepping up and offering a static 8.04 build - SATTva (or anyone else for that matter) cant possibly compile for every glibc abi version out there. Just sayin'

[jeanphi]

Hi,

You should be able to compile luxrender by yourself, it's not very difficult on Linux systems.

Jeanphi

[Olliebrown]

Hi,

You should be able to compile luxrender by yourself, it's not very difficult on Linux systems.

Jeanphi

Yup, and I may try that. The trick is that these computers (which are the only Hardy computers around) can be unfriendly for getting all the necessary dependencies together (can't run apt and I only get 300mb of storage to work with ... which I've already pretty much used up for other things). Anyways, I only brought it up so you'd know that Ubuntu Hardy support in the Linux binary was lost between 0.7 and 0.7.1. I'm not really looking for help here (though it's always appreciated)

Seth

[SATtva]

I'd say the complaint is valid. As GLIBC ABI is forward (but not backwards) compatible, there is a point in using something not so bleeding edge. I'll try to switch back to 2.8 or even 2.6 once I have time to rebuild my compilation environment. But usually downgrading GLIBC is a PITA on Gentoo systems, and I have no idea how those older versions will behave with a modern GCC, so please don't hold your breath.

[pciccone]

I don't know if this applies to you but virtualization could solve the problem. I have Parallels on my Mac and use it to run W7 for compiling the Windows verison of Reality and I have a couple of versions of Ubuntu too. If you can install a virtualized version of Linux you would not need to mess with your glibc installation.

[SATtva]

I'm not a big fan of virtualization considering its overhead (not only pure computational one, but also in maintaining the virtualization infrastructure itself), so usually go for chrooted environments. Of course I'm not messing with system libs on my main production systems. But anyway thanks for the advice. If downgrading GLIBC would become too problematic, maybe I'll just install a virtualized Ubuntu (or some other distro) with an appropriate version.

[pciccone]

I'm not a big fan either, for daily use, but it beats the hell of buying a separate PC just to build a Windows version