On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Uwe Stöhr <uwesto...@web.de> wrote: > Am 05.09.2011 20:43, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: > > > I tried the merged installer. >> > > Many thanks! > > > Here is some feedback: >> >> 1. The icon is not the nicest one. We should have a transparent one. >> > > What icon do you mean? The installer uses the icon of the lyx.exe file. If > you want another icon, we must change the build code to link it to the > lyx.exe. > >
I see one in my taskbar with a dark-blue background, but it appears as an ugly square. > > 2. I agree with Joost that the dialog to choose the start menu folder is >> not necessary anymore. It >> is not useful having only a single item in a map. >> > > People requested to choose the start menu folder and almost all installers > I know provide this feature. IMO it is useless. Why would one not want to have LyX in a directory called... "LyX" ? Maybe people requested this because they don't like the default LyX 2.0.0, LyX 2.0.1 and so forth. > There is also only one programs on my PC (Inkscape) that is not following > the Windows guideline to have its own folder in the start menu. > Joost was citing a completely different Windows guideline. > This is also necessary to distinguish between different LyX versions. For > example I have LyX 1.4.5, 1.5.7, 1.6.10. 2.0.1 and 2.1.0svn installed. > Without a folder for each program, I would have 5 entries with the same name > "LyX". > The entry in the start menu is "LyX 2.0", so no confusion here. > (Initially in the LyX folder there was also the link to uninstall LyX but > Joost were opposed to this, so I dropped it.) > > Yes, you uninstall programs using the Control Panel->Add or Remove Programs. > > 3. The start menu folder is called "LyX 2.0.1". I don't like the version >> number in the name, there >> is no need for it. >> > > We need the version number to distinguish between different versions. Many > users I know are still using LyX 1.6.x side by side to LyX 2.0.x in case > there are regression bugs in LyX 2.0.x. For the same reason we got reports > that users even do this for a stable LyX series. So the might have LyX 2.0.0 > _and_ 2.0.1 installed. > > I'm sorry, but we are not going to bother _every_ user because some exceptional person wants to have LyX2.0.1 and LyX2.0.2 installed next to each other. I can't think of a reason to do so. If a newer version is worse, then you can just install the older one again. > > >> 5. Why do we install the MikTeX packages without asking the user for >> permission? >> > > Because new user cannot know what a package is and what is it about. Their > cryptic names are also meaningless, even if you know some basics about > LaTeX. > We can also not let new users about 50 times read popup dialog with lots of > information that are cryptic and he should decide what to do. We therefore > install all available packages that are needed by LyX. This way the user is > not bothered and he gets a full functional LyX. The installation progress is > made visible in the installer. > It takes toooooooooooo much time. That's why I set the preference in MikTeX to not automatically install packages, but the LyX installer just overrides it. I'm the boss of my pc, not the LyX installer. Why is the installer only targeted for new users that have no idea what LaTeX is ? I think most users are not new users. What is wrong with having a question, "Do you want to automatically install all LaTeX packages of the MikTeX distribution ?" which defaults to yes. If a user does not know what a LaTeX package is, he can just click ok. Now, we're overruling the decision of the expert users. This is an often heard critique about LyX that it thinks it knows better than the user. This is a typical case. > > This is one of the key features of the installer! > I hate it. > 6. Joost had a reason to not allow to start the application from the >> installer. Isn't this a problem >> now anymore ? >> > > I don't know what you are referring to. > > Last page: "Launch LyX". We've discussed this more than once. > > 7. Joost's LyX2.0 installer installed the folder AppData/Roaming/LyX2.0. >> Can we please have the same >> directory for newer installers instead of lyx20 ? >> > > What do you mean? LyX's settings folder is on my PC > C:\Documents and Settings\Uwe\Application Data\lyx20 > What do I mean ? Are you sure you don't know ? > > All LyX 2.0.x releases share the same folder. The 1.6.x series uses the > folder "lyx16". What is wrong with that? > I don't know why Joost's installer creates a folder "LyX2.0" instead of > "lyx20". For me this folder is created automatically when LyX.exe is called > the first time. So he must be using a special compilation setting. I won't accept any installer for the LyX 2.0 series that is not compatible with a previous one. I installed a custom layout into the LyX2.0 directory and now I have to manually move it into the lyx20 directory. This is unacceptable. > > 8. Joost's LyX2.0 installer installed in the folder Program Files/LyX20. >> The merged installer in >> Program Files/LyX 2.0.1. Can we please have the same directory for newer >> installers? Preferably >> without all the version numbers. >> > > This is not possible, because how would yo then distinguish between the > different installations? You can have LyX 1.6.4 installed besides 1.6.10. > And we have user who are actually using this as I stated above. (I did the > same when I wrote my thesis.) > > Then these users will be disappointed. I can't think of ANY reason to have two different minor versions of LyX installed on your machine and expect the installer to adjust all the defaults to this. The user can change the directory into which he wants to install LyX if he desperately wants to have more than one installation. > > 9. I found the following faulty registry entries. Where do they come from ? >> >> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\LyX.**Document\Shell\open\command >> "C:\Program Files (x86)\LyX 2.0.1\bin\LyXLauncher.exe" "%1" >> >> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\LyX.**Document\DefaultIcon >> C:\Program Files (x86)\LyX 2.0.1\bin\LyXLauncher.exe,0 >> > > LyXLauncher is the executable that hides LyX's console Window. Joost > doesn't need this anymore since he found a way to compile LyX without its > console window. But I was not able to do the same. No matter if I compile > with SCons or CMake, I always get a lyx.exe that comes with a console > window. > > I don't understand. We discussed this and we clearly agreed that LyXLauncher was history. Now you suddenly are still using it, showing the same bugs as I reported previously. You can simply get rid of the console by setting the MSVC project properties LyX -> Configuration Properties -> System -> SubSystem -> Windows. > > HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Applications >> C:\Program Files (x86)\LyX 2.0.1\imagemagick\convert.exe $ >> > > This is ImageMagick's converter executable. This entry is set by > ImageMagick. > > Please don't tell me this is the ImageMagick's converter executable. I could have figured that out myself. The problem is that: a) it is the wrong key: Applications is a folder, not a key itself (if there is a difference). b) Why doesn't Joost's installer set this if it is set by ImageMagick itself ? > 10. Now, I have both LyX2.0.0 and LyX2.0.1 installed on my pc ? Shouldn't >> we overwrite the previous >> version ? >> > > No. See the reasons above. > I totally do not agree with these reasons. Because a few people might want to use multiple minor releases, ALL users have to manually uninstall LyX2.0.0 after installing LyX2.0.1, manually uninstall LyX2.0.1 after installing LyX2.0.2, etc. What happens to the user directory called LyX2.0 or lyx20. Does it persist after uninstalling ? If so, apparently we do not clean up our mess while uninstalling. We should do that. If not, the user lost all his settings. Or will there be a question what to do with the risk of pressing the wrong button. This price is way too high for users that just upgrade from 2.0.0 to 2.0.1. Vincent
