On 09/28/2018 10:52 PM, Andrew Parsloe wrote: > On 29/09/2018 1:53 p.m., Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: >> On 09/28/2018 12:04 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: >>> On 9/28/18 10:31 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: >>>> Am Freitag, den 28.09.2018, 16:13 +0200 schrieb Daniel: >>>>> Maybe there is a reason for 1) but >>>>> then the installer should tell the user to uninstall the old version >>>>> first not only under the conditions mentioned in the initial dialog >>>>> (see attached screen capture). >>>> I agree. Or it should simply remove the prefixed binaries (maybe after >>>> a warning). >>> I'll have to try to figuure out how to do that. I'm surprised that the >>> installer simply writes into the existing directory rather than >>> replacing it. That almost seems like a security issue. >> So for now, we just remove LyX2.3.exe, etc. But should we just remove >> the whole directory >> before we begin the install? Who knows what other stuff there might be >> in there? >> >> Riki >> > LyX 2.3 (with a space) is where LyX is installed; LyX2.3 (no space) is > the user directory. This has been the practice for 'ages' on windows.
Hmm, I am confused then. I'm honestly not sure how LyX2.3 would come to be the user directory. Actually, I do see it now, I think. I'll have to look further at this. > I would expect a minor version upgrade to overwrite the LyX 2.3 > directory, but not overwrite the LyX2.3 directory. I hadn't noticed > before but I see that the binary is LyX2.3.exe (camel-cased & > numbered) for version 2.3.1, but in 2.2.3 (and earlier versions, if I > remember correctly) it is just lyx.exe. It will be LyX.exe in future releases. But of course Windows is case-insensitive. Riki
