Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 31.05.2015 um 16:01 schrieb Georg Baum: > >> It definitely _is_ available as an executable if you use the debian >> package, so detection of elyxer on debian is now broken. > > OK, reverting now.
Thanks. >> IMO we had too many changes of the kind that works for one developer on >> one OS while ignoring that other people use different workflows, are >> working on different kinds of documents, or are simply using a different >> OS. If these keep coming then I want to go back to the mode we used years >> ago: Each change must be sent to the list for review first, and only if >> nobody objects it may go in. > > In this case you are right. > > In many cases I think it is obvious. This is exactly my problem: Even if a change looks obvious to you, and you did all checks one could expect, there might still be something hidden that you don't see. I do not expect that you know something about a particular linux distribution, but I do expect that you trust your fellow developers that they did not commit nonsense. In this particular case, you could either have asked on the list, or traced down the origin of the check without .py, and the latter would have lead to http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/533d0c2a9f660a/lyxgit, which is a strong indication that it is needed, and not something that slipped in by accident. > I mean I looked at the source code > and at the official website. There is only an elyxer.py. So if someone > converts this to an executable I don't think that LyX must take care of > it. I mean I can also make a zip-file out of elyxer and provide this > with my personal Linux distribution. Would we then also check for eLyXer > as Zip file? I guess no. Of course not. But adding support for esoteric things is something different from removing already existing support for things which look esoteric, but in fact are not (in case you are interested, the reason why elyxer does not use a .py suffix in debian is a policy thing, but I am too lazy to look up the details). Georg
