Am 17.11.2010 22:30, schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
An installer for 2.0beta1 follows tomorrow.
It is now available:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-us...@lists.lyx.org/msg83884.html
regards Uwe
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> JMarc, these two seems to have somthing in comon with you ;) : 6768 (at
>> point machinery), 6930 (undo broken)
>
> Concerning 6930, the introduction of AtPoint lead to removing a recordUndo
> call for INSET_MODIFY. Since the code is common to all AtPoint entries (a
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:45:02PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 17/11/2010 23:32, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> >I also don't see any value in forbidding its usage, given that LyX seems
> >not to be affected by those regressions.
>
> Since it can break AC_CHECK_SIZEOF, we have to be pre
Le 17/11/2010 23:32, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
I also don't see any value in forbidding its usage, given that LyX seems
not to be affected by those regressions.
Since it can break AC_CHECK_SIZEOF, we have to be pretty sure that this
is never called on any platform.
But since probably nobod
Le 14/11/2010 01:38, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
JMarc, these two seems to have somthing in comon with you ;) : 6768 (at point
machinery), 6930 (undo broken)
Concerning 6930, the introduction of AtPoint lead to removing a
recordUndo call for INSET_MODIFY. Since the code is common to all
AtPoint en
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:15:42PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 17/11/2010 18:33, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> >Well, I remember having used 2.66 without problems but your sharp
> >assertion made me test it again. So, I reinstalled 2.66 and tried
> >it on both branch and trunk: no probl
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:00:42PM +0100, rgh...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: rgheck
> Date: Wed Nov 17 23:00:42 2010
> New Revision: 36354
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/36354
>
> Log:
> We don't generally use "static" this way in the LyX code any more. (Just
> a bit of cleanup while studyi
Le 17/11/2010 18:33, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
Well, I remember having used 2.66 without problems but your sharp
assertion made me test it again. So, I reinstalled 2.66 and tried
it on both branch and trunk: no problem whatsoever.
I was simply assuming that nobody had actually tried 2.66 and i
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 03:48 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >
> >As regards the other isxxx() tests, I suggest to audit them on an as
> >needed basis, according to what the posix standard says:
> >http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
> Is there any plan afoot for Windows binaries of 1.6.8
A Windows installer for 1.6.8 is already available:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-us...@lists.lyx.org/msg83880.html
An installer for 2.0beta1 follows tomorrow.
regards Uwe
On 11/17/2010 03:48 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
As regards the other isxxx() tests, I suggest to audit them on an as
needed basis, according to what the posix standard says:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/mindex.html
(click on the "Alphabetic index" link at the bottom for access
Hi everyone,
Is there any plan afoot for Windows binaries of 1.6.8 and the beta of 2.0.0? I
realise I could compile them myself, but I'm not set up to do that, and besides
it would be nice to have the "official" binaries.
Thanks,
Jim
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:23:58PM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote:
> Am 16.11.2010 um 18:00 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > Moral: either we stick an "#undef isdigit" in our code or we switch
> > to iswdigit(). However, in this case, some locale expert should clarify
> > under what conditions the output
Am 16.11.2010 um 18:00 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:16:38PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
This will work too I guess.
>>>
>>> In the sense of "avoid the crash"...
>>>
>>> The purpose of hasDigit() is to test for occurrences of digits to avoid
>>> spell che
Am 17.11.2010 um 18:40 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>
>>> Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68?
>>>
>>> The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case)
>>>
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68?
> >
> > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case)
> > warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:48:14PM +0100, Kornel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > > > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow aut
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Stephan Witt wrote:
> > > Stephan Witt wrote:
> > it's not clear which LyX version was used by the ticket creator kuhn
> > >>>
> > >>> 1.6.6
> > >>
> > >> Are you sure?
> > >> The LyX-version in ticket is 2.0.0svn... (is it the default?)
> > >
> > > sorry, i meant the
Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68?
> > >
> > > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68?
>
> The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case)
> warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument
> is not conforming.
> See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/aut
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68?
> >
> > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case)
> > warnings which are now issued by AC_
Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68?
>
> The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case)
> warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument
> is not conforming.
> See http:
Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68?
The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case)
warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument
is not conforming.
See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-09/msg00069.html
I tested
23 matches
Mail list logo
