On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:42:24AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 08:20:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > Yes, but is not "consistent" with the windows environment:
> | >
> | > cd c:/foo/bar
> | > win app -> /
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:42:24AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 08:20:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > Yes, but is not "consistent" with the windows environment:
> | >
> | > cd c:/foo/bar
> | > win app ->
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 08:20:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Yes, but is not "consistent" with the windows environment:
| >
| > cd c:/foo/bar
| > win app -> /foo/bar is c:/foo/bar
|
| Only if you happen to be on c:. Windows has per-drive 'c
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 08:20:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Yes, but is not "consistent" with the windows environment:
>
> cd c:/foo/bar
> win app -> /foo/bar is c:/foo/bar
Only if you happen to be on c:. Windows has per-drive 'current working
directories'.
If you start at d:\, cd c:\
On Saturday 22 July 2006 23:39, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On Saturday 22 July 2006 14:13, Georg Baum wrote:
> | > > What is the problem with included boost there?
> |
> | I am using FC-5.
> |
> | I had the problems that Georg and Jürgen reported, a
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 08:20:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 07:58:50PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | > Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | > Is '/foo/bar' an absolute path?
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 07:58:50PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | > Is '/foo/bar' an absolute path? On posix the answer is 'Yes!', on
| > | > windows it is 'No!Ã', on cygwin it is 'De
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 07:58:50PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > Is '/foo/bar' an absolute path? On posix the answer is 'Yes!', on
> | > windows it is 'No!Ã', on cygwin it is 'Depends!'
> |
> | On cygwin it is 'Yes!', too.
>
> Is it? O
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Is '/foo/bar' an absolute path? On posix the answer is 'Yes!', on
| > windows it is 'No!Ã', on cygwin it is 'Depends!'
|
| On cygwin it is 'Yes!', too.
Is it? Only if you are conscious about staying withing the cygwin
framework I guess. (ad. root
Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 15:59 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> Please repeat after me: "Cygwin is an abomination" :-)
No problem. I am not the one who wants changes for cygwin :-)
Georg
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 06:28:00PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
[...]
> | Cygwin lets you use both windows and posix paths in posix functions.
> | I find this very handy.
>
> And this is the crux of the matter I guess. If you happen to use a
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 03:59:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 15:39 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
| > |
| > | > Boost does this:
| > | >
| > | > bool path:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 03:49:16PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 15:25 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
>
> > Do you mean that you will not make the change?
>
> No, since a) I do not understand how the paths look at what places in the
> code under cygwin and b) this patch was n
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 03:59:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 15:39 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> |
> | > Boost does this:
> | >
> | > bool path::is_complete() const
> | > {
> | > # ifdef BOOST_WINDOWS
>
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 15:39 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
|
| > Boost does this:
| >
| > bool path::is_complete() const
| > {
| > # ifdef BOOST_WINDOWS
| > return m_path.size() > 2
| > && ( (m_path[1] == ':' && m_path[2] == '/')
Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 15:39 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> Boost does this:
>
> bool path::is_complete() const
> {
> # ifdef BOOST_WINDOWS
> return m_path.size() > 2
> && ( (m_path[1] == ':' && m_path[2] == '/') // "c:/"
> || (m_path[0] == '/' && m_path[1] ==
Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 15:25 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> Do you mean that you will not make the change?
No, since a) I do not understand how the paths look at what places in the
code under cygwin and b) this patch was not meant to be applied anyway.
Georg
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 10:37:52AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
|
| > Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 02:46 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
| > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:11:13PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
| > >
| > > > + if (!npath.is_complete())
| > > > +
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 10:37:52AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
|
| > Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 02:46 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
| > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:11:13PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
| > >
| > > > + if (!npath.is_complete())
| > > > +
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 10:37:52AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 02:46 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:11:13PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> >
> > > + if (!npath.is_complete())
> > > + return "./" + npath.string() + '/';
> >
> > Please, use
>
Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 02:46 schrieb Enrico Forestieri:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:11:13PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
>
> > + if (!npath.is_complete())
> > + return "./" + npath.string() + '/';
>
> Please, use
>
> if (!os::is_absolute_path(npath.string()))
>
> here, as on c
Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 00:39 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> (Is the boost version in 1.4.x updated to be the same as in trunk?)
No, but at least bug 2677 occurs with both trunk and 1.4
Georg
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:11:13PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> + if (!npath.is_complete())
> + return "./" + npath.string() + '/';
Please, use
if (!os::is_absolute_path(npath.string()))
here, as on cygwin both c:/xxx and /xxx are absolute paths and this is
not caught by b
Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Saturday 22 July 2006 14:13, Georg Baum wrote:
| > > What is the problem with included boost there?
|
| I am using FC-5.
|
| I had the problems that Georg and Jürgen reported, as I have told before an
| easy way to me to crash lyx is:
|
| 1) ins
Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2006 19:00 schrieb Bo Peng:
> Really? Last time I compiled 1.4.2 with cygwin/boost1.33.1, I got lots
> of compile errors like include file not found.
Yes, you are right, my memories where wrong. I tried it now, and the
attached patch makes 1.4 compile with both boost 1.33 an
On Saturday 22 July 2006 14:13, Georg Baum wrote:
> > What is the problem with included boost there?
I am using FC-5.
I had the problems that Georg and Jürgen reported, as I have told before an
easy way to me to crash lyx is:
1) insert a figure in lyx
2) overwrite that figure in the backgro
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Definitely. The gcc-4.1/boost-1.33 problems are the source of the most
> | severe bugs in 1.4 currently.
>
> Can you recap this for me. And provide a detailed way to reproduce.
Compiled with gcc-4.1, LyX frequently crashes when images or preview-latex are
involved.
Am Samstag, 22. Juli 2006 11:27 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | We also need to think about 1.4.
>
> What is the problem with included boost there?
If you compile it with gcc 4.1 you get crashes. The only one I looked
closer at is the already mentione
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > writes:
| >
| > | No, but IMO it should still be possible to compile trunk with a system
| > | boost 1.33. See my patch in http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2677
| > | for a quick
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Georg Baum wrote:
| > We also need to think about 1.4.
|
| Definitely. The gcc-4.1/boost-1.33 problems are the source of the most severe
| bugs in 1.4 currently.
Can you recap this for me. And provide a detailed way to reproduce.
--
L
On Friday 21 July 2006 16:50, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Definitely. The gcc-4.1/boost-1.33 problems are the source of the most
> severe bugs in 1.4 currently.
I agree, overwriting a figure currently displayed by lyx and therefore
crashing lyx is not fun. :-(
> Jürgen
--
José Abílio
> Then we should follow big distributions closely. For example, we
> should make both lyx.1.4.x and 1.5.x work with cygwin/boost 1.33.1.
1.4 works IIRC perfectly with boost 1.33. the only reason why an external
boost is not officially supported are disabled exceptions, but I believe
that 1.4 woul
Bo Peng wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Friday 21 July 2006 16:00, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> > I belive we should just decide that we will support system boost from
>> > 1.34 and further on... (and then we can also remove boost from our
>> > sources.)
>>
>>
Georg Baum wrote:
> We also need to think about 1.4.
Definitely. The gcc-4.1/boost-1.33 problems are the source of the most severe
bugs in 1.4 currently.
Jürgen
On 7/21/06, Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 21 July 2006 16:00, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I belive we should just decide that we will support system boost from
> 1.34 and further on... (and then we can also remove boost from our
> sources.)
I like this option.
Then we sho
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
>
> | No, but IMO it should still be possible to compile trunk with a system
> | boost 1.33. See my patch in http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2677
> | for a quick and dirty solution.
>
> (wasn't that quick and dirty sol
On Friday 21 July 2006 16:00, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I belive we should just decide that we will support system boost from
> 1.34 and further on... (and then we can also remove boost from our
> sources.)
I like this option.
> --
> Lgb
--
José Abílio
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > I know that boost 1.34 is not released yet, but I'd like to update our
| > in-source version of boost to use that anyway.
| >
| > Objections?
|
| No, but IMO it should still be possible to compile trunk with a system boo
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I know that boost 1.34 is not released yet, but I'd like to update our
> in-source version of boost to use that anyway.
>
> Objections?
No, but IMO it should still be possible to compile trunk with a system boost
1.33. See my patch in http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug
39 matches
Mail list logo
