hi..
i get this error ,compiling lyx-1.1.6fix2 on redhat7.1:
make[2]: Entering directory `/root/lyx/lyx-1.1.6fix2/lib'
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `lyxrc.defaults', needed by `all-am'.
Stop.make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/lyx/lyx-1.1.6fix2/lib'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1
Hi,
A few more mathed bugs ("|" denotes cursor as usual) in current
1.2.0cvs:
* in $2^{x|}$ makes $x|$ (i.e., kills script inset). Very
annoying when changing scripts. Perhaps require a second
to delete the inset, as done for parenthesis?
* C-v always pastes into the end of the current
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> Allan Rae wrote:
> >
> > This site is now updated and looks just as pretty as www.lyx.org.
> I'll look when your thesis is finished.
> Garst
Thanks Garst!
I was just getting it out of way so I could work on my thesis without
having a nagging feeling
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:01:44PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > > (simply typing "my" infront of "pipe"), I cannot [Save] or [Apply] that change
> > > because both buttons are still disabled. This is not the correct behaviour to
> > > my opinion, since I have changed the p
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> I'm not against the option of generating a latex code that doesn't use fancy
> packages. However, I'm not sure that the best way is to have a dialog in which
> you can disable each package individually.
> One option is to have a --compatibility flag, namely
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:01:44PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
[...]
> > Talking about coding rather than user input. IMO, these fields of the
> > dialog shouldn't be going anywhere near the input() function.
>
> the problem is here :
>
> 352 if (
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:50:31PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
>
> > This is smelling like an uninitialized variable.
>
> I don't think it's that simple a bug. I suspect an xforms bug of some kind,
> I'll see if I can get the bug again with a different version of xforms .
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:28:08PM +0200, Philippe Charpentier wrote:
> I have gcc-2.96-81. The last RedHat update is gcc-2.96-85; do you think I
> have a chance
> to see any difference with it?
maybe not in this circumstance but in general 81 has many bugs fixed by 85 ...
it is a definitely g
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:50:31PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> This is smelling like an uninitialized variable.
I don't think it's that simple a bug. I suspect an xforms bug of some kind,
I'll see if I can get the bug again with a different version of xforms ...
john
--
"Voodoo Programming
Dekel Tsur wrote:
>The problem is probably due to the compiler in Redhat
>
>Get the latest updates for the compiler.
>
I have gcc-2.96-81. The last RedHat update is gcc-2.96-85; do you think I have a chance
to see any difference with it?
> You can also try to compile without
>optimizations (do s
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:01:41PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> >> > ... and now it's gone. 0.88.9, gcc 3.0 ... Still bombs here with
> >> 0.89.5, gcc 3.0 ... ,
>
> John> can others test please (J
11 matches
Mail list logo
