On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:28:40PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Pavel Sanda writes:
>
> > Richard Heck wrote:
> >> Hmm. Compiling under Qt 4.5, I do not see that there at all. Is there some
> >> kind of conflict involving the moc version? I also note, by the way, that
> >> the ui file
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 04:53:45PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > This seems
> > harmless on both Linux and native Windows but causes a crash on Cygwin.
> >
>
> The difference might be that cygwin reset the memory to zero once the
> object is deleted. I know th
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> I wanted to get early feedback.
>
> To sum up the feedback: The approach (testing for a python module) is
> fine. Putting the detection routine into a checkModule() function
> would be even better:
> * provide a re-usable means of module d
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:04:15PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:04:15PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> rgheck wrote:
> >>>
>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:09:48PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > What about also allowing autoconf 2.64? I tested it and found no problems.
> > Patch attached.
>
> I don't know. Does testing by a single person (on what platforms?) suffice? I
> understand that "a
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> > I don't know. Does testing by a single person (on what platforms?)
>> > suffice? I understand that "allow" means that we are sure it works.
>>
>> I guess it is worth trying at least on trunk. There is a significant
>> bonus in there (
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > I don't know. Does testing by a single person (on what platforms?)
> > suffice? I understand that "allow" means that we are sure it works.
>
> I guess it is worth trying at least on trunk. There is a significant
> bonus in there (smaller and faster configure script
On 09/21/2009 06:50 AM, Guenter Milde wrote:
On 2009-09-18, rgheck wrote:
What I meant was this: When a new feature is added, lyx2lyx generally
writes the raw LaTeX to ERT.
In my understanding, ERT is a last ressort. There are a lot of syntax
changes that are easily converted back to
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> What about also allowing autoconf 2.64? I tested it and found no problems.
>> Patch attached.
>
> I don't know. Does testing by a single person (on what platforms?) suffice? I
> understand that "allow" means that we are sure it works.
I g
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> What about also allowing autoconf 2.64? I tested it and found no problems.
> Patch attached.
I don't know. Does testing by a single person (on what platforms?) suffice? I
understand that "allow" means that we are sure it works.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> So, shall I remove mkinstalldirs? The docs say it is not used anymore.
>
> I'd keep it. It does not harm.
Sure.
JMarc
Enrico Forestieri writes:
> What about also allowing autoconf 2.64? I tested it and found no problems.
> Patch attached.
OK with me.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> So, shall I remove mkinstalldirs? The docs say it is not used anymore.
I'd keep it. It does not harm.
Jürgen
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
On 09/20/2009 05:41 PM, you...@lyx.org wrote:
Author: younes
Date: Sun Sep 20 23:41:21 2009
Ne
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:50:18PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Jurgen, this could go in branch too. I can skip the removal of
> > mkinstalldirs if you want to be extra safe.
>
> OK.
What about also allowing autoconf 2.64? I tested it and found no problems.
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Jurgen, this could go in branch too. I can skip the removal of
>> mkinstalldirs if you want to be extra safe.
>
> OK.
So, shall I remove mkinstalldirs? The docs say it is not used anymore.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Jurgen, this could go in branch too. I can skip the removal of
> mkinstalldirs if you want to be extra safe.
OK.
Jürgen
lasgout...@lyx.org writes:
> Author: lasgouttes
> Date: Mon Sep 21 14:16:42 2009
> New Revision: 31431
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/31431
>
> Log:
> small cleanup, now that we require automake 1.8
Jurgen, this could go in branch too. I can skip the removal of
mkinstalldirs if you want
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
I didn't look, so maybe the answer is no, but is there some way this
could be done in one centralized location? It seems bad if we have
to have this same code in several places. But maybe there are only
some LFUNs for which it is needed?
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
On 09/20/2009 05:41 PM, you...@lyx.org wrote:
Author: younes
Date: Sun Sep 20 23:41:21 2009
Ne
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> > rgheck wrote:
> > > On 09/20/2009 05:41 PM, you...@lyx.org wrote:
> > >> Author: younes
> > >> Date: Sun Sep 20 23:41:21 2009
> > >> New Revision: 31419
>
you...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: younes
> Date: Mon Sep 21 10:21:37 2009
> New Revision: 31427
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/31427
>
> Log:
> Fix crash with LFUN_PARAGRAPH_GOTO in embedded work area.
>
> Modified:
>lyx-devel/trunk/src/BufferView.cpp
>
> Modified: lyx-devel/trunk/sr
On 2009-09-18, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> ..., why not going the extra step and become a LyX
> developer? ;-)
Simple reason: I do not like beer ;-)
Further, I do not have C++ experience, no hardware to compile and run lyx
in debugging mode, limited time, and no clue about the commitments and
ex
On 2009-09-18, Alex Fernandez wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> To improve the *LyX <-> elyxer* integration, I propose that elyxer
>> provides a method and/or command line option that prints the supported
>> input file formats. LyX's configuration script can use this
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> rgheck wrote:
> > On 09/20/2009 05:41 PM, you...@lyx.org wrote:
> >> Author: younes
> >> Date: Sun Sep 20 23:41:21 2009
> >> New Revision: 31419
> >> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/31419
> >>
> >> Log:
> >> Try to dispatc
On 2009-09-18, rgheck wrote:
> On 09/18/2009 03:26 AM, Guenter Milde wrote:
>>> However, this will of course not enable elyxer to deal
>>> with any 1.7-specific material, since that may just be converted to ERT,
>>> and elyxer has little choice to but ignore ERT.
>> (Actually, elyxer could also p
On 2009-09-18, Afief Halumi wrote:
> Basically we need a png for gimp and an svg for inkscape,
and a bunch of other templates as
Skencil.svg for skencil,
sketch.svg for sketch,
Dia.dia for dia,
Paint.png for Windows Paint,
mtPaint.png for mtPaint (mtpaint.sf.net)
ipe.pdf and ipeTe
Pavel Sanda writes:
> Richard Heck wrote:
>> Hmm. Compiling under Qt 4.5, I do not see that there at all. Is there some
>> kind of conflict involving the moc version? I also note, by the way, that
>> the ui file in question has the xml line at the beginning, which might
>
> xml line in the beg
On 2009-09-19, Alex Fernandez wrote:
> ... it looks for
> eLyXer installed as a Python module (called "elyxer", not
> "elyxerconv"); if not found it searches for the usual elyxer.py,
> elyxer executables. Hopefully this solves all reasonable issues and
> concerns of LyX developers and integrators.
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
>> I didn't look, so maybe the answer is no, but is there some way this
>> could be done in one centralized location? It seems bad if we have
>> to have this same code in several places. But maybe there are only
>> some LFUNs for which it is needed?
>
> Yes, this is only
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
On 09/20/2009 05:41 PM, you...@lyx.org wrote:
Author: younes
Date: Sun Sep 20 23:41:21 2009
New Revision: 31419
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/31419
Log:
Try to dispatch to document BufferView in case dispatch to current
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
On 09/20/2009 05:41 PM, you...@lyx.org wrote:
Author: younes
Date: Sun Sep 20 23:41:21 2009
New Revision: 31419
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/31419
Log:
Try to dispatch to document BufferView in case dispatch to current
BufferView fails. This is
rgheck wrote:
On 09/20/2009 05:41 PM, you...@lyx.org wrote:
Author: younes
Date: Sun Sep 20 23:41:21 2009
New Revision: 31419
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/31419
Log:
Try to dispatch to document BufferView in case dispatch to current
BufferView fails. This is needed for the LFUNs intr
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> OK?
Yes.
Jürgen
35 matches
Mail list logo
