Pavel Sanda wrote:
see why you might want to do what you describe. Perhaps in that case we
should only allow these buffers to be opened read-only?
very good idea. should i bugzilla it?
Sure.
rh
Richard Heck wrote:
>> is there some reason we treat softlinks to files as the same files?
>> i have this setup:
>> 0) master including 1,2,3
>> 1) a/1.lyx
>> 2) b/1.lyx
>> 3) c/1.lyx
>>
>> where 2 and 3 is symlinked to 1.
>> i want that 2 and 3 both have different local pictures and different
>>
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 12:25:32 pm Pavel Sanda wrote:
hi,
is there some reason we treat softlinks to files as the same files?
i have this setup:
0) master including 1,2,3
1) a/1.lyx
2) b/1.lyx
3) c/1.lyx
where 2 and 3 is symlinked to 1.
i want that 2 a
Pavel Sanda wrote:
hi,
is there some reason we treat softlinks to files as the same files?
i have this setup:
0) master including 1,2,3
1) a/1.lyx
2) b/1.lyx
3) c/1.lyx
where 2 and 3 is symlinked to 1.
i want that 2 and 3 both have different local pictures and different
insetinfo buffer-path
Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 July 2009 12:25:32 pm Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > is there some reason we treat softlinks to files as the same files?
> > i have this setup:
> > 0) master including 1,2,3
> > 1) a/1.lyx
> > 2) b/1.lyx
> > 3) c/1.lyx
> >
> > where 2 and 3 is symlinked to 1.
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 12:25:32 pm Pavel Sanda wrote:
> hi,
>
> is there some reason we treat softlinks to files as the same files?
> i have this setup:
> 0) master including 1,2,3
> 1) a/1.lyx
> 2) b/1.lyx
> 3) c/1.lyx
>
> where 2 and 3 is symlinked to 1.
>
> i want that 2 and 3 both have diffe
hi,
is there some reason we treat softlinks to files as the same files?
i have this setup:
0) master including 1,2,3
1) a/1.lyx
2) b/1.lyx
3) c/1.lyx
where 2 and 3 is symlinked to 1.
i want that 2 and 3 both have different local pictures and different
insetinfo buffer-path, however lyx treat 2
