Le 21/09/2012 00:09, Kayvan Sylvan a écrit :
After some more looking at the documentation and the ui files, I figured out
that the easiest way to do what I want is the "Build Program" submenu of the
"Document" menu. :-)
Sorry for the noise.
I would still like to figure out how to add the "Build
Kayvan Sylvan gmail.com> writes:
>
> I found out that I can do:
>
> File -> Export -> More Formats and Options -> Program
>
> But this is obviously more cumbersome than clicking a Build button.
>
> How can I get this functionality back?
>
> ---Kayvan
>
After some more looking at the documen
Kayvan Sylvan gmail.com> writes:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm back to playing with LyX and noweb and I installed the latest LyX on my
Fedora 17 system. It works beautifully! Thank you all for the great work.
>
> I pulled up one of my files but I can't find the Build button or menu item. I
can export to
Hi guys,
I'm back to playing with LyX and noweb and I installed the latest LyX on my
Fedora 17 system. It works beautifully! Thank you all for the great work.
I pulled up one of my files but I can't find the Build button or menu item.
I can export to noweb and run build-script myself, but it woul
> LyX 2.0.4 is loading hyperref automatically with the option
> 'unicode=true' and this causes Acrobat Reader (9.5.1)
> to display the PDF-bookmark-numbers in mixed
> arabic-chinese nonsense.
Can you please provide an example LyX file because I have never seen such a
be
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > M.B. Schiekel wrote:
> > > But then the next question comes up. LyX 2.0.4 is loading hyperref
> > > automatically with the option 'unicode=true' and this causes Acrobat
> > > Reader (9.5.1) to display
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> M.B. Schiekel wrote:
> > But then the next question comes up. LyX 2.0.4 is loading hyperref
> > automatically with the option 'unicode=true' and this causes Acrobat
> > Reader (9.5.1) to display the PDF-bookmark-numbers in mixed
> >
M.B. Schiekel wrote:
> But then the next question comes up. LyX 2.0.4 is loading hyperref
> automatically with the option 'unicode=true' and this causes Acrobat
> Reader (9.5.1) to display the PDF-bookmark-numbers in mixed
> arabic-chinese nonsense. What's that?
Don
Am 25.07.2012 10:08, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
>> M.B. Schiekel wrote:
>> With me, this bug-fix does not work - LyX 2.0.4 produces the following
>> tex-file with bibtopic *before* hyperref and not *after* hyperref :-(
>
> This looks like you are loading hyperref manua
M.B. Schiekel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> many, many thanks for your wonderful work.
>
> Now I've a question concerning LyX 2.0.4 (25 June 2012) and bug #8005:
> "wrong loading order for bibtopic and hyperref packages"
>
> In lyx-announce you wrote, that LyX
Dear all,
many, many thanks for your wonderful work.
Now I've a question concerning LyX 2.0.4 (25 June 2012) and bug #8005:
"wrong loading order for bibtopic and hyperref packages"
In lyx-announce you wrote, that LyX 2.0.4:
- Load bibtopic after hyperref, thus preventing a LaTeX
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> What about spaces in path names of files? I was quite surprised that
>> LyX couldn't handle that on Windows,
>
> That is not true. LyX can handle them of course. Spaces in paths even exists
> in Windows' default installation folders. If you find
Am 08.07.2012 18:25, schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
I have now provided the new installer version "LyX-204-3" here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/
The download link on the sourceforge front page hasn't been changed to 204-3
yet.
This usually takes a while until it is available a
From: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org [lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org] on behalf of Uwe Stöhr
[uwesto...@web.de]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 11:55 AM
>I have now provided the new installer version "LyX-204-3" here:
>http://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/
The download link on the sourceforge front pag
Am 28.06.2012 11:23, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that:
- the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of LyX20 as
the current official
installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this behav
Am 05.07.2012 06:48, schrieb Liviu Andronic:
What about spaces in path names of files? I was quite surprised that
LyX couldn't handle that on Windows,
That is not true. LyX can handle them of course. Spaces in paths even exists in Windows' default
installation folders. If you find a case wher
Public release of LyX version 2.0.4
===
We are pleased to announce the release of LyX 2.0.4. This is the fourth
maintenance release in the 2.0.x series.
LyX 2.0.4 is the result of on-going efforts to make our stable version
even more reliable and stable. We have
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 04.07.2012 00:28, schrieb Richard Heck:
>> I'm allergic to spaces in pathnames myself.
>
> They are not a problem. I was using this for years in the old installer and
> also the other progrmas use spaces, see my screenshot.
>
> So this topic i
Am 04.07.2012 00:28, schrieb Richard Heck:
You Windows people should decide what makes sense.
As I have shown in my screenshot the other programs use also the scheme "Name major.sub", so "LyX
2.0" would be the same.
I'm allergic to spaces in pathnames myself.
They are not a problem. I wa
programs but some. I guess that is a matter of tested, but I
use
"LyX 2.0.4" as proposition because of the side-by side installation
issue we discussed.
Very good example ! Cmake 2.8 is probably cmake 2.8.8. LibreOffice
3.5 is actually 3.5.4. Python has
a minor version number too. Don
chard
I was in favour of using a "LyX 2.0.4" folder but this is a valid point.
I already change the suggested installation folder (from C:/Program
files ... to E:/Program files ...). It would be no hardship to make an
additional change from "LyX20" to "LyX 2.0.x".
Andrew
of tested, but I use
"LyX 2.0.4" as proposition because of the side-by side installation
issue we discussed.
Very good example ! Cmake 2.8 is probably cmake 2.8.8. LibreOffice 3.5 is
actually 3.5.4. Python has
a minor version number too. Don't you see that it just disp
On 07/03/2012 05:17 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 03/07/2012 01:57, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
So how about if we propose LyX20, and then if someone wants to install
various things side-by-side,
can't they do that by choosing some other name?
Yes, but if he is not patient, he just clicks Next an
0 programs
I have to group them not to loose the overview.
And yes, other programs also do this: Python, CMake, LibreOffice, Qt...
Not all programs but some. I guess that is a matter of tested, but I use
"LyX 2.0.4" as proposition because of the side-by side installation
issue we discusse
Le 03/07/2012 01:57, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
So how about if we propose LyX20, and then if someone wants to install
various things side-by-side,
can't they do that by choosing some other name?
Yes, but if he is not patient, he just clicks Next and thus installs in
the proposed/default "LyX20" folde
Am 02.07.2012 23:15, schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
Well, last time I tried, the lyx file format was no longer connected to LyX
after uninstalling an
old LyX version after installing the new one.
I cannot reproduce this anymore. This was a bug but seems to be fixed. However,
before you blame the
install
Am 02.07.2012 11:00, schrieb Liviu Andronic:
Random thought: When using the standalone installer, not the bundle
one, does the same issue exist? Will LyX instruct MiKTeX to install
packages, if missing?
Yes, because we require new packages from time to time or replace a package support by anot
Am 28.06.2012 14:08, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
Now I read a bit more the miktexdoc. I suspect that using directly the
PackageInstaller interface
http://docs.miktex.org/2.8/sdk/interfaceIPackageInstaller.html
would help being much faster than the clunky configure.py-based solution.
It is
Am 02.07.2012 22:59, schrieb Richard Heck:
The installer proposed "LyX 2.0.4" as name but you can of course chose any
other name of your
choice. But the average user justs clicks several time OK in an installer and
then gets the
default/proposed folder.
So how about if we propose
Am 02.07.2012 20:51, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from 2.0.1 to
2.0.2 it brought
problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and memory leakage which caused a
number of crashes,
and I needed to revert to
On 07/02/2012 04:56 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 02.07.2012 22:47, schrieb Richard Heck:
Isn't it possible for users to choose to install to a different
location if they wish to do so? I'd
have thought the issue here was what we do by default.
The installer proposed "LyX 2.0.4&q
ght the issue here was what we do by default.
The installer proposed "LyX 2.0.4" as name but you can of course chose any other name of your
choice. But the average user justs clicks several time OK in an installer and then gets the
default/proposed folder.
regards Uwe
with LyX. So assume you have uninstalled LyX 2.0.3 and
the installed 2.0.4 or
you have installed 2.0.4 over an existing 2.0.3, you can later reinstall an
older LyX version, but
the stripped-down programs remain in subfolders of LyX 2.0.4. So you then have
to adapt the paths in
the older LyX version
Am 02.07.2012 08:30, schrieb Andrew Parsloe:
I've had no problems uninstalling afterwards. Just to check, I've uninstalled
2.0.3 *after*
installing 2.0.4. No problems (the only thing to remember is *not* to uninstall
preferences). I've
then reinstalled 2.0.3 beside 2.0.4, again without proble
On 07/02/2012 04:42 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 02.07.2012 10:23, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from
2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling,
and
memory leakage which caused a numb
Am 02.07.2012 10:23, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from
2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and
memory leakage which caused a number of crashes, and I needed to revert
to 2.0.
on why I don't accept this installer now is that:
- the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of
LyX20 as the current official
installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this
behaviour;
There is also no reason not to change the name of the folder.
Le 02/07/2012 08:30, Andrew Parsloe a écrit :
There is also no reason not to change the name of the folder. I already
also explained that we can easily change the name to somewhat else but
need the info about the bugfix release. If is perfectly valid to install
LyX 2.0.4 and leave 2.0.3 as
ss" and "suppress".
The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that:
- the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of
LyX20 as the current official
installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this
behaviour;
There is al
Am 28.06.2012 12:30, schrieb Liviu Andronic:
Here's my proposal for a compromise:
- Have the installer default to 'Install on the fly', making it by
default tailored to inexperienced users
- Have an Advanced tab where this can be changed, while each option is
clearly explained, and stern and hum
out them. However, these settings don't harm
and if you would have installed IM using its own installer, you would get them too.
The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that:
- the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of LyX20 as
the current offi
Am 28.06.2012 11:04, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
If such users need to choose
(or actually choose) something other than 'Install packages on the
fly', LyX is effectively broken for them.
I don't get this sentence.
I guess he means that then they don't have all packages needed by LyX. Soo
Am 28.06.2012 00:20, schrieb Liviu Andronic:
made about 50 times a decision. The installer is the first thing a new user
sees and he cannot know anything at this state.
I concur...
If such users need to choose
(or actually choose) something other than 'Install packages on the
fly', LyX is effe
Le 28/06/2012 13:29, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Le 28/06/2012 12:30, Liviu Andronic a écrit :
Correct me if I'm wrong, we all agree that the 3 possible installation
procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages:
- 'Install on the fly' results in a complete LyX installation where
all
Le 28/06/2012 12:30, Liviu Andronic a écrit :
Correct me if I'm wrong, we all agree that the 3 possible installation
procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages:
- 'Install on the fly' results in a complete LyX installation where
all works. It is appropriate for new and inexperienced u
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Op 28-6-2012 0:20, Liviu Andronic schreef:
>> I concur. Even when I manage to convince people that LyX may be
>> interesting and they indeed want to install it by themselves (not
>> knowing anything LaTeX related), I still prefer to
The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that:
- the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of
LyX20 as the current official installer does. I really don't see a
single reason to change this behaviour;
- this means that you have to manually uninstall t
Op 28-6-2012 0:20, Liviu Andronic schreef:
I concur. Even when I manage to convince people that LyX may be
interesting and they indeed want to install it by themselves (not
knowing anything LaTeX related), I still prefer to insist strongly
that I perform the installation myself. If such users nee
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> If I remember your only remaining complain was that I set MiKTeX to install
> missing packages silently. I several times explained in detail why this is
> necessary. I accept that you are an expert in many fields but the average
> user is not. W
Am 27.06.2012 10:21, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
Op 27-6-2012 2:56, Uwe Stöhr schreef:
I now finished the new Windows installer. It is the merge of my old one and
Joost's.
It still doesn't comply to my first demand, so I still won't accept it. I don't
understand why I
have to say this o
Op 27-6-2012 2:56, Uwe Stöhr schreef:
I now finished the new Windows installer. It is the merge of my old
one and Joost's.
It still doesn't comply to my first demand, so I still won't accept it.
I don't understand why I have to say this over and over again.
I already have released a test ve
I now finished the new Windows installer. It is the merge of my old one and Joost's. I already have
released a test version some weeks ago to be able to iron out some remaining issues. The last step
was to enable the support for installing LyX without admin privileges. This is now also possible
Am 26.06.2012 um 16:19 schrieb Richard Heck:
> On 06/26/2012 09:28 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> Am 25.06.2012 um 15:35 schrieb Richard Heck:
>>
>>> I have put source tarballs, etc, here:
>>>http://frege.brown.edu/lyx/
>>> Please check compilation on your platform. Packagers should prepare
>>>
On 06/26/2012 09:28 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
Am 25.06.2012 um 15:35 schrieb Richard Heck:
I have put source tarballs, etc, here:
http://frege.brown.edu/lyx/
Please check compilation on your platform. Packagers should prepare binaries.
It works on Mac OS X too. BTW, the tar.gz seems to be br
Am 25.06.2012 um 15:35 schrieb Richard Heck:
> I have put source tarballs, etc, here:
>http://frege.brown.edu/lyx/
> Please check compilation on your platform. Packagers should prepare binaries.
It works on Mac OS X too. BTW, the tar.gz seems to be broken (truncated).
Stephan
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> can bring http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXOnUbuntu to more up-to-date
> status?
>
I did a revamp of the wiki page. Could someone approve the new links
(or send me privately the password for doing so)?
Liviu
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Liviu Andronic wrote:
>> Ubuntu binaries are available on the PPA [1].
>> [1] https://launchpad.net/~lyx-devel/+archive/release
>
> I guess there is no sense to upload these on ftp, but maybe you
>
No, that wouldn't be sensible, I think.
> c
Liviu Andronic wrote:
> Ubuntu binaries are available on the PPA [1].
> [1] https://launchpad.net/~lyx-devel/+archive/release
I guess there is no sense to upload these on ftp, but maybe you
can bring http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXOnUbuntu to more up-to-date
status?
Pavel
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Richard Heck wrote:
>
> I have put source tarballs, etc, here:
> http://frege.brown.edu/lyx/
> Please check compilation on your platform. Packagers should prepare
> binaries.
>
Ubuntu binaries are available on the PPA [1].
[1] https://launchpad.net/~lyx-devel/+a
2012/6/25 Richard Heck :
>
> I have put source tarballs, etc, here:
> http://frege.brown.edu/lyx/
> Please check compilation on your platform. Packagers should prepare
> binaries.
Complies and installs fine on openSuse 11.2 (i686) with Qt 4.8.2.
Jürgen
> Richard
>
Richard Heck wrote:
>
> I have put source tarballs, etc, here:
> http://frege.brown.edu/lyx/
> Please check compilation on your platform. Packagers should prepare
> binaries.
Compiles and runs on gentoo x86. P
I have put source tarballs, etc, here:
http://frege.brown.edu/lyx/
Please check compilation on your platform. Packagers should prepare
binaries.
Richard
Any last updates to manuals, etc, should be done now.
Richard
Richard Heck wrote:
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/wiki/BugTrackerHome#Unresolvedbugstargetedtonextmaintenancerelease2.0.4
> and let me know if there are any we really need to fix before strings are
I already run through the list and pinged the bugs which seemed to me
important. I also think
that all
We've accumulated a good number of bug fixes for 2.0.4, and it's been
almost three months since the last release, so it's time to start
thinking about another one. I'll remerge strings and inform the
translators shortly. Before I do that, please have a look at our list of
bugs for 2.0.4
65 matches
Mail list logo
