Alex Fernandez wrote:
> The switch is there. What I see is that with the patch LyX is going to
> look for two executables in the path: elyxer.py or elyxer:
> + path, elyxer = checkProg('a LyX -> HTML converter', ['elyxer.py',
> 'elyxer'],
> and then it is going to execute a different elyxer.py from the scripts
> directory anyway, ignoring those in the path:
> + rc_entry = [ r'\converter lyx html "python -tt
> $$s/scripts/elyxer.py --directory $$r $$i $$o" ""' ])
> This copy of elyxer.py in the scripts directory has to be distributed
> along with LyX, either standalone or in the installer.
>
> This is going to result in strange behavior for people who have
> already downloaded eLyXer from a different source (not many of them,
> granted).
Right, this is bad. The detection should work whether eLyXer is in the scripts
directory or not.
> The recommended way of running eLyXer is as a module; I sent a patch
> to the list that tried to first detect the module and then the
> executable. Sadly, I then failed to come through with the suggested
> improvements (I guess I was too busy with childish preemptive
> trolling):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg154797.html
> Please find enclosed elyxer-module2.diff, a finished version of that
> patch. It will work with eLyXer as a module or as an executable in the
> path, and should address those concerns raised at the time.
I do not understand Python enough to evaluate the module idea, but the
approach strikes me sensible (whereas I do not like the "unconditional"
patch).
Uwe, could you check this patch works for you?
Jürgen
