>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Paul A. Rubin wrote: >> Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy >> these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of >> whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, >> presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same >> permissions. Peter> Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as Peter> root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it Peter> automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking Peter> LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. Yes, this is a problem. Actually, I think that we could get rid of this configure script invocation at install time, but I have to test it a bit more carefully. Peter> This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to Peter> find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* Peter> it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it Peter> works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. Well, to my defense, I will say that things were a bit different when I wrote this code long long ago :) Are we now in a situation where _all_ worthy TeX installations rely on kpathsea? Peter> Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their Peter> systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version Peter> first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one Peter> turns out to be a lemon. I am not sure yet what I want to do. If I have my own "latex" wrapper in my PATH, I would not want LyX to try to be clever and use the real latex instead. JMarc
