On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 06:47:35PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > Not even an feeble attempt at trying to help fix anything, or even look > > at alternative solutions. > > Lars: You lost quite a few of us. There aren't too many people left who > are able to help you.
I can't even compile 1.3.0cvs at present because automake-1.4 just isn't good enough anymore. > And a working alternative solution had been there, at least in a few cases. > But that's the "revert mantra" in your ears. I really would have thought that after all the talk about branches at various times in the last year that experimental changes like switching to boost::signals would have been done in a branch so if it didn't work it could be abandoned but kept for reference without much hassle or merged into the "stable" trunk if deemed successful. Despite that, it seems to be more and more necessary for LyX developers _and users_ to be using gcc-cvs rather than gcc-some-recent-release if they want to compile LyX! This might be reasonable if LyX were as politically big a project as the Linux kernel and hence could drive gcc development or have some other significant contribution/influence on other projects but we aren't. boost is starting to be a PITA much as XTL was before its time and beyond readily available compilers. Allan. (ARRae)
