[Bf-committers] Retiring Linux GLibc 2.11 builder

Francesc Juhe fjuhec at gmail.com
Sun Oct 2 17:27:24 CEST 2016

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.


On 02 Oct 2016, at 17:15, Sergey Sharybin <sergey.vfx at gmail.com> 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 <fjuhec at gmail.com> 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 <montagne29 at wanadoo.fr> 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
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> -- 
> With best regards, Sergey Sharybin
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list