On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Richard Heck <rgh...@lyx.org> wrote: > On 06/12/2015 04:09 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller <sp...@lyx.org> wrote: >>> >>> 2015-06-12 0:00 GMT+02:00 Liviu Andronic: >>>> >>>> Before I distribute the fixed module on the Wiki, should I expect such >>>> a change to break any backwards compatibility for existing documents >>>> using the old module? >>> >>> >>> lyx2lyx takes care about _some_ Flex: prefix changes that have been done >>> within the layouts shippped with LyX. It might cover your case as well, >>> but >>> you can only find out by testing. >>> >> Thanks. I suspect "Custom:" prefix renamed to "Flex:" is common and >> handled already by LyX, as here all seems to work OK with existing >> documents. >> >> >>> Since your module is not included in the distribution, you can do not >>> much, >>> except documenting the change. >>> >> Should I be using the: >> Format 2 >> >> convention? I suspect it won't make a difference since the module >> isn't in the distribution, but I'm wondering about "good practice"... > > > You should use whatever format tag is correct for your particular module. > This is what Lyx > uses to determine whether it needs to do a layout2layout conversion. > Oh, so this is the format supported by LyX, not some internal module numbering. If missing, it's assumed to be 1. Current LyX (2.1.x I presume) is 35. As per our docs:
"5.3.3 Format number The first non-comment line of any layout file, included file, or module must contain the file format number: Format [int] The format number of the layout file. This tag was introduced with LyX 1.4.0. Layout files from older LyX versions do not have an explicit file format and are considered to have Format 1. The format for the present version of LyX is format 35. But each version of LyX is capable of reading earlier versions' layout files, just as they are capable of reading files produced by earlier versions of LyX. There is, however, no provision for converting to earlier formats." But then I'm confused. Why does litinsets.inc have Format 54 (in GIT; it's 49 in 2.1.3)? And how does one decide which format number is appropriate? Thanks, Liviu > Richard > -- Do you think you know what math is? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/ian-stewart-2013-08-02 Or what it means to be intelligent? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/john-duncan-2013-08-30 Think again: http://www.ideasroadshow.com/library
