Paul A. Rubin wrote:
This is a synopsis of a bug reported by someone on the user list. I'm
hesitant to put it in bugzilla (but will if asked to), because I can't
reproduce it at my end, and he's rolled back to 1.4.1.
The symptom: He has a LyX file that loads a Postscript image file.
The file does not display inside LyX. Poking around in debug mode
reveals that Ghostscript appears to be hanging open (waiting for user
input?) until he manually kills it (at which point LyX reports the
image won't display). The image file lives in a directory about five
levels deep.
Things that cure the bug:
1. moving the Postscript file to C:\ (shortening its path);
2. running lyx.exe directly, rather than running lyx.bat;
3. commenting out either of the SET commands in lyx.bat.
Things that don't cure the bug:
1. adding the path to Ghostscript to the system command path;
2. reducing environment use by adding "SET <irrelevant variable>=" to
lyx.bat.
As I said, I can't reproduce the bug using his files, even if I bury
his image file eight levels deep with a longer path than he had. The
bit about commenting out seemingly unrelated environment variables had
me thinking that the problem involved a buffer overflow somewhere, but
I use twice as much space in my environment as he does, and my command
path is a lot longer. I have GS on the command path and he doesn't,
motivating the attempt to have him add it to his path (it's on his LyX
PATH prefix already), but no joy.
From the debugging output he got, convertDefault.sh seems to be
passing the path of the image file to convert.exe correctly. I don't
know how to find out if convert is passing it correctly to Ghostscript.
Anybody have a flash of recognition with this? Should I bugzilla it
(even though I can't be of any help testing possible patches)?
A postscript to this: the victim, who had a few earlier versions of LyX
installed, uninstalled 1.4.2 and reinstalled to C:\lyx\lyx14, and the
bug disappeared. Conceivably there might have been some interaction
with an older version, although I couldn't see one.
<sigh>And, naturally, immediately after I posted this he reported that
the bug reappeared on a different file.</sigh>
/Paul
