Jose Capco wrote: >> I guess not. But once we've resolved the problem, >> I'll post lyx_1.3.6-2.
> Thanks. If it takes to copy a certain dll file (I just > get the impression that it has to do with windows > dlls) then you could just tell us.. but maybe its not > just that. You may have to install the freely-redistributable shfolder.dll (22kB) if you're using Win98 or older, but I'll provide a link to that. However, I'll also have to change some code within LyX. > Another thing that concerns me a bit, but not really > something very important, is that I find it a bit of a > waste being forced to install so many other things > simultaneously with this new version (the new version > required me to install python, mingw.. etc.). > Apparently LyX is the only program I have here that > uses these.. (why wouldn't it work without them > totally installed, the way it used to in the previous > version for windows?). Couldn't LyX binary installer > just have the library files thats being used and do > away with these extra installations? No. Not from where I'm sitting. One of the PITAs about Ruurd's original port was that he tried to create stripped down versions of a Unix shell environment, of Python, of Perl, for use by LyX only. As soon as we tried to add extra functionality to LyX, these things just broke. Get an official release and get it only once. They're not things we should provide or want to support. (There are only a few LyX devs and our LyX-development time is a scarce resource.) Admittedly, LyX uses too many different scripting languages, but that's just a reflection of LyX's history as a Unix app where all these things are usually already installed. We're working on reducing the dependencies. For a start, LyX 1.4 will not need Perl. I'd like to think that we'll eventually get rid of the need for a Unix shell too. Angus
