Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

Am 09.03.2018 um 05:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: From what I understand, I think we still need to come to an agreement on whether to provide a dialog to the user asking if they would like to either cancel the installation or proceed and have the installer update MiKTeX. Please, I wrote now so

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:45:48PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 08.03.2018 um 22:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > > Unfortunately I think the MiKTeX issues also affect the installer (see > > the email from Uwe on Feb. 26). > > I just post that all known issues have been fixed from my Windows That

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:16:02PM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > > > > > In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? > > > > For that one, I can indeed see that the dot is not a dot at low

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 08/03/2018 ? 18:18, Pavel Sanda a écrit : >> am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots >> for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? >> The fix seems to be so trivial that I wonder whether I am missing >> something? >> Attached is the fix (two

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > > > In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? > > For that one, I can indeed see that the dot is not a dot at low zoom > levels as well. You mean zoom-in changes the visual appearance

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

I just tried the windows installer. Here is what it does (no evaluation intended since I probably don't understand enough of this). 1. LyX installs fine. 2. The user is not asked whether to update MiKTeX or cancel the setup. 3. There are a couple of messages that seem fine but are also a bit

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

Am 08.03.2018 um 22:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: Unfortunately I think the MiKTeX issues also affect the installer (see the email from Uwe on Feb. 26). I just post that all known issues have been fixed from my Windows perspective. You can in my opinion go an release. regards Uwe

Re: Solution: Summary for the Win installer problem

Am 07.03.2018 um 16:17 schrieb Uwe Stöhr: I am going nuts. MiKTeX released now some fixes to its package handling but they arrived broken on the package servers. Therefore since today the solution we found for LyX in combination with MiKTeX doesn't work. This was not correct. In fact MiKTeX r

Re: [LyX/master] Fix crash when citeengine is unknown.

On 02/16/2018 12:24 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > 2018-02-16 18:05 GMT+01:00 Richard Heck >: > > On 02/14/2018 01:21 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 14.02.2018, 12:50 -0500 schrieb Richard Heck: > >> I wonder if what we really need to do here

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:10:49PM +, Richard Heck wrote: > Did you suggest at one point releasing just the installer and not the > bundle? Can we do that? It seems unfortunate to delay the release > altogether just because MiKTeX has bugs. Unfortunately I think the MiKTeX issues also affect

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:35:25PM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots > > > for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? > > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > In other words, wh

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

On 03/08/2018 12:08 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 08:26:17PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> If we do not go forward with the release as discussed in the preceding >> paragraph, another question is: should we wait another few days to see >> if we are ready to release the W

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Le 08/03/2018 à 18:18, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Hi, am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? The fix seems to be so trivial that I wonder whether I am missing something? Attached is the fix (two short lines make it to something which

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots > > for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? This is what I see here and it's bo

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:18:47PM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Hi, > > am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots > for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature

\[ddd]dots in mathed

Hi, am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? The fix seems to be so trivial that I wonder whether I am missing something? Attached is the fix (two short lines make it to something which looks like a dot). Attached is the solutions