On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 08:05:10PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Just my two cents: > > I agree with Jean-Marc that we should keep things simple. We don't have > to support each and every conceivable configuration. If we manage to > provide the Windows world with a working LyX - no matter how - our job > is done!
Michael, the point is that I think a cygwin version of LyX is potentially better than a native version. This is my opinion and I do not want to convince anybody of it. You should understand that there may be someone who doesn't like what you like and viceversa ;-) I compile it for myself and I think I am not leaking any resource from the native version. I also hope to not be a stumbling stone. > I also don't understand why a user may want to change path > conventions at run-time (is there anybody out there who actually > understands the implications?) It is not like that. You simply decide that you like the win-style for paths and check a button in preferences, so it is as if you have the native version. Or you could prefer a posix appearance. But you do this once, not every minute. There is no implication, as the LyX sources already deal with both pseudo-win style and posix style. It is like having a chameleon. The way I designed things, the conversions are always consistent and till now I neither noticed problems, nor can I foresee them. If I have a problem using win-style paths, the same problem will show up in the native version. If I have a problem with posix style, the same problem will show up in the *nix version. However, as cygwin runs on Windows, the win-style is more advantageous, because you can use both native and cygwin apps. Using the native version you are somewhat more limited. I use cygwin and have many cygwin applications, so I do not want to have duplicates for using LyX. Heck, I was even using cygwin for compiling a native version! I was able to use cygwin and native LyX together, but it seems that many people have trouble. So, I think that a cygwin version is good for them. > This said, I am happy with any patches that fix cygwin problems. > However, we should make sure that MinGW and MikTeX continue to work > without special hacks. Agreed. -- Enrico
