BH wrote:
> I've posted a binary here:
>
> http://edisk.fandm.edu/bennett.helm/lyx/LyX-1.6.5svn-Snow-Leopard-
Test.app.zip
>
Thanks, Bennett. I'll post a request for testers.
Jürgen
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
>
>> BH wrote:
>>> I can build and post a binary, but since I don't have Snow Leopard I'm
>>> unable to test.
>>
>> That would be great.
>>
>>> Shall I use the patches first posted in this thread against cur
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> BH wrote:
>> I can build and post a binary, but since I don't have Snow Leopard I'm
>> unable to test.
>
> That would be great.
>
>> Shall I use the patches first posted in this thread against current branch?
>
> I think only the nofork patch is relevant (for 1.6.4.2)
BH wrote:
> I can build and post a binary, but since I don't have Snow Leopard I'm
> unable to test.
That would be great.
> Shall I use the patches first posted in this thread against current branch?
I think only the nofork patch is relevant (for 1.6.4.2).
Jürgen
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> > I am reluctant to push a mac-related change when nobody wants to test it.
>>
>> OTOH, I am confident about the patches.
>
> If we get someone to build the binary, I'm sure we find some people on lyx-
> use
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > I am reluctant to push a mac-related change when nobody wants to test it.
>
> OTOH, I am confident about the patches.
If we get someone to build the binary, I'm sure we find some people on lyx-
users to test that.
Jürgen
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes writes:
> I am reluctant to push a mac-related change when nobody wants to test it.
OTOH, I am confident about the patches.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I am reluctant to push a mac-related change when nobody wants to test it.
I can understand that.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> If the fork() disabling proves to be unproblematic, I'd propose to do
> that change in branch as well. What is the status of the autosave
> speedup patch you posted? If it works and if you're confident about
> it, it can be backported as well.
Either these patches wor
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Time to proceeed?
>
> Yes. What do you want me to do?
If the fork() disabling proves to be unproblematic, I'd propose to do that
change in branch as well. What is the status of the autosave speedup patch you
posted? If it works and if you're confident about it, i
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> > The patch that disables fork() seems obvious enough to me, but an extra
>> > pair of eyes (and testers) would help.
>>
>> This part is in trunk now. It will maybe make some people test it. This
>> is all I can do unfortunately.
>
> Ti
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > The patch that disables fork() seems obvious enough to me, but an extra
> > pair of eyes (and testers) would help.
>
> This part is in trunk now. It will maybe make some people test it. This
> is all I can do unfortunately.
Time to proceeed?
Jürgen
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes writes:
> The patch that disables fork() seems obvious enough to me, but an extra
> pair of eyes (and testers) would help.
This part is in trunk now. It will maybe make some people test it. This
is all I can do unfortunately.
> For the speedup part, this can indeed wait for
BH writes:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> It seems that nothing is happening on the snow leopard front. This is
>> something that has to be solved ASAP (1.6.4.2?)
>
> Sorry ... I've been swamped and will be for the foreseeable future.
No pro
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> It seems that nothing is happening on the snow leopard front. This is
> something that has to be solved ASAP (1.6.4.2?)
Sorry ... I've been swamped and will be for the foreseeable future.
BH
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> It seems that nothing is happening on the snow leopard front. This is
>> something that has to be solved ASAP (1.6.4.2?)
>
> definitely. Thanks for coming back to this.
>
> 1.6.4.2 would mean that we would have to patch the 1.6.4.1 sourc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> It seems that nothing is happening on the snow leopard front. This is
> something that has to be solved ASAP (1.6.4.2?)
definitely. Thanks for coming back to this.
1.6.4.2 would mean that we would have to patch the 1.6.4.1 sources. Branch is
too far off (and would b
Hello,
It seems that nothing is happening on the snow leopard front. This is
something that has to be solved ASAP (1.6.4.2?)
The patch nofork.diff just disables forking altogether on Mac OS X. This
is definitely a bit rude. If somebody tells me how to determine the OS
version at runtime, I can u
18 matches
Mail list logo
