Le 02/06/2016 20:27, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Le 02/06/16 à 20:41, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
You are right, LyX deserves a better font selection dialog. I had a
quick look: there is the QFontDialog widget which has a writing system
selection menu. See https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qfontdialog.htm
Le 03/06/2016 06:24, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Dear all,
Are we going to require C++11 starting with LyX 2.3.0? From what I
understand, this will make several things easier.
Scott
Apart from Boost features and smart pointers from the other message, two
areas come to mind:
* char32_t and Uni
Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 15:36:37, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:40:59PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > I'm still not sure what the implications of moving to CMake as our
> > > official build system are (I should have made this more clear in my
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:40:59PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > I'm still not sure what the implications of moving to CMake as our
> > official build system are (I should have made this more clear in my
>
> To start with: If you make tarball with autotools and cmake is th
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>
> > Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Liviu Andronic :
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum
> > wrote:
> >> One thing I noticed recently is the
> >> version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake
On 06/04/2016 01:28 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
>
>> OK, please commit to 2.2.x. (Safe enough, yes?)
> Done. Yes, it is safe. And even if something went wrong you would now see it
> in the diffs when sommitting .po files: The only visible diffs should now be
> changed line numbers
> Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Liviu Andronic :
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum
> wrote:
>> One thing I noticed recently is the
>> version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake you
>> can only toggle between a predefined one or none at all, which is a
Georg Baum wrote:
> commit 960bcc71c18b21e0444cfce3d9a5e7c10cb3172a
> Author: Georg Baum
> Date: Sat Jun 4 17:33:19 2016 +0200
>
> Get rid of pseudo diffs when remerging strings
>
> cmake sorts the input files for lyx_pot.py internally, but autotools
> use a shell pattern like
Richard Heck wrote:
> OK, please commit to 2.2.x. (Safe enough, yes?)
Done. Yes, it is safe. And even if something went wrong you would now see it
in the diffs when sommitting .po files: The only visible diffs should now be
changed line numbers in source files, and of course added, changed or
Georg Baum wrote:
> Together with 9df45c383ad this should now fix all pseudo-diff problems we
> had with .po file generation.
Nice! P
On 06/04/2016 11:54 AM, Georg Baum wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>
>> commit 960bcc71c18b21e0444cfce3d9a5e7c10cb3172a
>> Author: Georg Baum
>> Date: Sat Jun 4 17:33:19 2016 +0200
>>
>> Get rid of pseudo diffs when remerging strings
>>
>> cmake sorts the input files for lyx_pot.py inter
On 04/06/2016 10:18, Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Hi Guys,
Funny to discover that the same discussion is coming back every couple
of years :-)
I am not surprised at all, maintaining two build systems with such a small
amount of developers is simply stupid.
I agree.
The main
Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 10:15:03, schrieb Liviu Andronic
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum
> wrote:
> > One thing I noticed recently is the
> > version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake you
> > can only toggle between a predefined one or none at all,
Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 09:55:10, schrieb Georg Baum
> Richard Heck wrote:
>
> > On 06/03/2016 04:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote:
> >>> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck
> >>>
> I guess maybe ther
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Funny to discover that the same discussion is coming back every couple
> of years :-)
I am not surprised at all, maintaining two build systems with such a small
amount of developers is simply stupid.
> I think the only point to discuss is the GLOB functi
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Georg Baum
wrote:
> One thing I noticed recently is the
> version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake you
> can only toggle between a predefined one or none at all, which is a problem
> if you want to compare two different builds of the
Richard Heck wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 04:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote:
>>> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck
>>>
I guess maybe there is a question worth discussing here about how many
of us understan
Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Do you want to commit?
Thanks for the reminder, it is in now at 6bd5263405340b.
Georg
Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Why not just using a set instead of a vector if this is important?
I believe that the order matters. We prefer the first format that is
reachable with a converter. With the current solution, qt can give a
preference, if we used a set then we would prefer the first in al
Hi Guys,
Funny to discover that the same discussion is coming back every couple
of years :-)
On 03/06/2016 22:22, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 03/06/16 à 18:42, Richard Heck a écrit :
Same here. I am used to autotools, so I use it.
I have reservations about cmake, but I would have some a
20 matches
Mail list logo