Le 07/03/2018 à 17:27, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
In general: I have no problem in being criticized. But I have a problem
that I am talking directly to the MiKTeX developer to find a solution
and when I do what he proposes you are telling me that it can be done
better.
I think you are indeed the one who knows how to tweak the current system
to make it work. However, it is good to have an external eye that can
question some of the basic decisions made for this installer.
I have done my share of clever systems that work magically except when
they break down miserably. Now I try to think more in terms of robustness.
Miktex documentation explicitly recommends to use the Miktex Console
to get updates, and does not set the update mechanism to automatic.
The MiKTeX Console (introduced around end of January) is the new update
mechanism. Before, there was no MiKTeX Console. Also many new options
you see in the MiKTeX docs didn't exist before and can therefore not be
used for LyX users having older installations.
OK, I see now. But wasn't there something equivalent before that?
This is why we should not change a system that works
See my last mail in this thread. It is not LyX that breaks something, it
is MiKTeX itself.
This is where we have to wonder whether we shall rely on a system that
is so fragile. I understand that distributions are user's choice, but it
is a pity that we can be so vulnerable to other people's bug. We try to
be very careful with our stable releases, and then we can have
catastrophic results due to always having the latest version of whatever
package someone releases.
Yes ;-) Also very good to know.
If you want to reproduce what I am talking about:
- uninstall MiKTeX
- install LyX 2.3.0RC1 bundle (Contains old MiKTeX installer from
October); deny to update MiKTeX
- reconfigure LyX or try to compile a LyX file that uses a package you
don't have yet.
I am not sure that I will find enough time in front of this particular
computer to try that.
Today I found one of the problems, which is funny: Some MiKTeX versions
use its update program for the update. During the update they try to
delete this program (itself) which is of course impossible. As result
you get a MiKTeX with still all packages there but latex cannot find
them anymore because all links to them were not reset in the new package
system.
This is alas not funny at all... Can't we rely on old-and-trusty miktex
versions? I see that you often try to update miktex as soon as possible,
but is it wise?
Sure, but then please start your Win laptops and try installing
different MiKTeX versions to see the different results LyX users will
get. Some won't see any problems, some will get a completely broken
MiKTeX. Testing this costs hours - it took a long time before I could
the first time reproduce what users reported back on our mailing lists.
I have to admit that I will find not the time to do it. I understand how
time consuming this testing is, nd I am grateful that you spend time on
it. But then we must find a way to reduce this burden on you. What I am
proposing is to ask ourselves: "where did we got it wrong?".
Well, the OS of choice of elegant people is macOS and you cannot argue
that they do not care that thing do not "just work". Yet, they install
MacTeX, which come in only one size (3G), maybe the 500M of extras if
they are very fussy and they are happy with it. It does not update,
but once a year one can install a new one.
I won't discuss about OSes. Users made their choice. I focus on Win
users. They have 2 options:
- they have background knowledge or the time to learn about LaTeX. They
can setup TeXLive or MiKTeX as they like since they know what a package is.
- they just need a working LyX and are not interested in how things work
behind LyX
I think that explaining people how to install LaTeX themselves is the
way to go. You cannot bear the weight of basically maintaining a LaTeX
distribution on top of the ever changing MikTex. The example of rupee
that you gave later in your message is typically an example of things
going wrong. You cannot afford to use your time to fix these issues. If
it is so important, let's tell people to install the full textlive
version and forget about any other problem.
To say the same thing differently, one design problem that I see is that
you are starting from Miktex, that tries to keep the TeX installation to
a minimum, and than take great pains to add everything that may be
useful on top of it. Why not use a distribution that has it all, to
begin with?
I understand that is not a solution for the 2.3.0 installer, which I am
not qualified to fix.
I work in the machine building industry. I have clever colleagues, some
with a Ph.D. So they are not children, but they have to focus on their
job. For example, recently I was informed on Monday that on Wednesday
the operation manual of a new device must be ready. These are more than
40 pages in 2 days but this is a standard task. Therefore I cannot
fiddle around with software things, I have to spend all my time on the
text (to fulfill all norms, that no info is missing etc.)
My daily experience is that nobody cares what software you are using (if
it generates no cost), as long as you do your job in time. If you are
faster with LibreOffice than with PowerPoint to prepare your
presentations, then do it. There is no excuse if you are not ready in
time because of a software problem.
Incidentally, this is why the software should not update itself during
these sessions.
<joke>
People who use wavy underlines deserve whatever happen ;)
</joke>
This is an attitude I don't like. This is respectless to users. There
are so many cases where you cannot decide on your own. Look at all the
norms around. Sometimes they require things that are typographically
stupid (e.g. I recently stumbled over "italic, underlined") or your boss
likes strange things.
Also if you are free to decide, if a software offers me a feature I
like, I expect that I can use it.
I knew it was unfair when I wrote it, but like the scorpion of the
fable, I could not help doing it ;)
But it was a joke, remember.
JMarc
