Apart from 1.2.2 being placed wrong (three commits too late), all is
good. The 1.2 tags:
1.2.0pre1
1.2.0pre2
1.2.0pre3
1.2.0pre4
1.2.0pre5
1.2.0rc1
1.2.0
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
--
Lgb
I added a approx 1.0.4 tag. This is basically what we based the new
development tree on. It might not be accurate, and I note that in the
tag message.
I also added tags for 1.1.1pre1 and 1.1.1pre2 which does not exist in
the svn repo. Seemingly in the right spot.
1.0.4 - synthetic and might
Apart from 1.2.2 being placed wrong (three commits too late), all is
good. The 1.2 tags:
1.2.0pre1
1.2.0pre2
1.2.0pre3
1.2.0pre4
1.2.0pre5
1.2.0rc1
1.2.0
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
--
Lgb
I added a approx 1.0.4 tag. This is basically what we based the new
development tree on. It might not be accurate, and I note that in the
tag message.
I also added tags for 1.1.1pre1 and 1.1.1pre2 which does not exist in
the svn repo. Seemingly in the right spot.
1.0.4 - synthetic and might
Michael Abshoff wrote:
Hello,
the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x
branch. I am stupid today or is that branch limited to the
developers-CVS?
Michael
No, you appear to be correct.
$ cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/lyx/cvsroot login
(Logging
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Michael Abshoff wrote:
|
| Hello,
|
| the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x
| branch. I am stupid today or is that branch limited to the
| developers-CVS?
|
| Michael
|
| No, you appear to be correct.
| $ cvs -d
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Michael Abshoff wrote:
|
| Hello,
|
| the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x
| branch. I am stupid today or is that branch limited to the
| developers-CVS?
|
| Michael
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | Michael Abshoff wrote:
| |
| | Hello,
| |
| | the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x
| | branch. I am stupid today or is that branch
Michael Abshoff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x
> branch. I am stupid today or is that branch limited to the
> developers-CVS?
>
> Michael
No, you appear to be correct.
$ cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/lyx/c
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Michael Abshoff wrote:
|
| > Hello,
| >
| > the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x
| > branch. I am stupid today or is that branch limited to the
| > developers-CVS?
| >
| > Michael
|
| No, you ap
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Michael Abshoff wrote:
> |
> | > Hello,
> | >
> | > the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x
> | > branch. I am stupid today or is that
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | Michael Abshoff wrote:
| > |
| > | > Hello,
| > | >
| > | > the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the l
Hello,
the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x branch.
I am stupid today or is that branch limited to the developers-CVS?
Michael
--
Michael Abshoff - MRB - Universität Dortmund - Telefon 755-3463 (intern)
Where do you want to RTFM today?
Hello,
the anoncvs-server doesn't seem to give access to the lyx-1.2.x branch.
I am stupid today or is that branch limited to the developers-CVS?
Michael
--
Michael Abshoff - MRB - Universität Dortmund - Telefon 755-3463 (intern)
Where do you want to RTFM today?
.
| I had previously compiled 1.2.xcvs on A's box, but only recently move to
| 3.2.1 there. I did a fresh checkout of lyx=1.2.x, but that did not help.
| The compile seems to go ok, but ld returns the errors.
Perhaps you should upgrade binutils too?
--
Lgb
Rod Pinna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| After compiling and installing gcc 3.2.1 I get the following from 122cvs
| (sorry about the amount, not sure where the interesting bit starts).
| I did a pretty standard install, giving gcc et al a suffix of -321-local.
And this was a clean lyx tree?
If so
Garst R. Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
But we do not create any shared libraries...
What platform is this?
| x86 linux
| This warning does not appear on my box.
| I had previously compiled 1.2.xcvs on A's box, but only recently move to
| 3.2.1 there. I
On 16 Dec 2002, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
Rod Pinna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| After compiling and installing gcc 3.2.1 I get the following from 122cvs
| (sorry about the amount, not sure where the interesting bit starts).
| I did a pretty standard install, giving gcc et al a
not appear on my box.
| I had previously compiled 1.2.xcvs on A's box, but only recently move to
| 3.2.1 there. I did a fresh checkout of lyx=1.2.x, but that did not help.
| The compile seems to go ok, but ld returns the errors.
Perhaps you should upgrade binutils too?
--
Lgb
Rod Pinna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| After compiling and installing gcc 3.2.1 I get the following from 122cvs
| (sorry about the amount, not sure where the interesting bit starts).
| I did a pretty standard install, giving gcc et al a suffix of -321-local.
And this was a clean lyx tree?
If so
"Garst R. Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>
|
>> But we do not create any shared libraries...
>> What platform is this?
| x86 linux
>
>>
>> | This warning does not appear on my box.
>> | I had previous
On 16 Dec 2002, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
> Rod Pinna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | After compiling and installing gcc 3.2.1 I get the following from 122cvs
> | (sorry about the amount, not sure where the interesting bit starts).
> | I did a pretty standard install, giving gcc
for builing C++ libraries.. blah blah
Sounds like a mis-install. I've compiled CVS successfully with 3.2.1,
but not tried 1.2
regards
john
--
ALL television is children's television.
- Richard Adler
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:33:16AM -0400, Garst R. Reese wrote:
error: cannot run C++ compiled programs.
obviously something is messed.
Indeed. You didn't install over an existing gcc did you ? You should
always install different versions using a different prefix like
/usr/local/gcc-3.2.1 or
After compiling and installing gcc 3.2.1 I get the following from 122cvs
(sorry about the amount, not sure where the interesting bit starts).
I did a pretty standard install, giving gcc et al a suffix of -321-local.
I'm about to try 130cvs.
Rod
make[3]: Entering directory
Hi all,
I also seem to get a similar message with 130cvs. If this is a bad install
of gcc on my part, feel free to yell. Compiles fine with 2.95
Rod
_
rod | Beneath the waves, the waves / That's where I will be /
| I'm
I can't get 130 to compile with 3.0.4, but this is a known problem I
believe. I have got 122cvs to compile with it though
Rod
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Garst R. Reese wrote:
On my box 1.2 compiled fine with gcc3.2
on Alice's with 3.0.4
but failed with 3.2.1
very strange since John had
ious problem for builing C++ libraries.. blah blah
Sounds like a mis-install. I've compiled CVS successfully with 3.2.1,
but not tried 1.2
regards
john
--
"ALL television is children's television."
- Richard Adler
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:33:16AM -0400, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> error: cannot run C++ compiled programs.
> obviously something is messed.
Indeed. You didn't install over an existing gcc did you ? You should
always install different versions using a different prefix like
/usr/local/gcc-3.2.1 or
After compiling and installing gcc 3.2.1 I get the following from 122cvs
(sorry about the amount, not sure where the interesting bit starts).
I did a pretty standard install, giving gcc et al a suffix of -321-local.
I'm about to try 130cvs.
Rod
make[3]: Entering directory
Hi all,
I also seem to get a similar message with 130cvs. If this is a bad install
of gcc on my part, feel free to yell. Compiles fine with 2.95
Rod
_
rod | "Beneath the waves, the waves / That's where I will be /
| I'm
I can't get 130 to compile with 3.0.4, but this is a known problem I
believe. I have got 122cvs to compile with it though
Rod
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> On my box 1.2 compiled fine with gcc3.2
> on Alice's with 3.0.4
> but failed with 3.2.1
> very strange si
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 17:38, Allan Rae wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Michael A. Koziarski wrote:
Oh don't forget that cursed music, hip-hop. It's enough
to make you fire a gun next to both ears to remove all trace of hearing
=)
I'm of the opinion that going to south australia at all
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 17:38, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Michael A. Koziarski wrote:
>
> > Oh don't forget that cursed music, hip-hop. It's enough
> > > to make you fire a gun next to both ears to remove all trace of hearing
> > > =)
> > >
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that going to south
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Michael A. Koziarski wrote:
Oh don't forget that cursed music, hip-hop. It's enough
to make you fire a gun next to both ears to remove all trace of hearing
=)
I'm of the opinion that going to south australia at all is reason enough
to something similar with a gun
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Michael A. Koziarski wrote:
> Oh don't forget that cursed music, hip-hop. It's enough
> > to make you fire a gun next to both ears to remove all trace of hearing
> > =)
> >
>
> I'm of the opinion that going to south australia at all is reason enough
> to something similar with
Oh don't forget that cursed music, hip-hop. It's enough
to make you fire a gun next to both ears to remove all trace of hearing
=)
I'm of the opinion that going to south australia at all is reason enough
to something similar with a gun . :)
Cheers
Kiwi Koz
Oh don't forget that cursed music, hip-hop. It's enough
to make you fire a gun next to both ears to remove all trace of hearing
=)
I'm of the opinion that going to south australia at all is reason enough
to something similar with a gun . :)
Cheers
Kiwi Koz
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:51:59PM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
Rob,
...
I still would prefer a script that in the first place creates a backtrace
from the coredump file.
As of right now I don't know how to do that =) I'll have a poke around -
I know that it must be possible. Maybe
On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 23:03, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:51:59PM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
Rob,
...
I still would prefer a script that in the first place creates a backtrace
from the coredump file.
As of right now I don't know how to do that =) I'll
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:51:59PM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
> Rob,
...
> > I still would prefer a script that in the first place creates a backtrace
> > from the coredump file.
>
> As of right now I don't know how to do that =) I'll have a poke around -
> I know that it must be possible.
On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 23:03, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:51:59PM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
>
> > Rob,
>
> ...
>
> > > I still would prefer a script that in the first place creates a backtrace
> > > from the coredump file.
> >
> > As of right now I don't know how to
Darren,
Have a look at the attached script.
It can handle what you intended, but also the core file by calling
lyxdbg src/lyx lyx.core. It also writes to current working directory,
instead of LYXDIR, which garantees better the write permission.
The script also uses /bin/sh (/bin/bash breaks on
Rob,
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 15:27, Rob Lahaye wrote:
Darren Freeman wrote:
Interesting.. maybe a wrapper shell script could be added instead, which
runs LyX through gdb and records anything interesting.. followed by
Darren,
I've tried your script. It's cute and it works here on my
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 22:40, Rob Lahaye wrote:
Darren,
Have a look at the attached script.
I'm trying it now, and changing what I want to.
These are my thoughts:
1) Running lyxdbg0.2 with no command line options should try to work out
what lyx to run, or give an error message, not run gdb
Darren,
Have a look at the attached script.
It can handle what you intended, but also the core file by calling
"lyxdbg src/lyx lyx.core". It also writes to current working directory,
instead of LYXDIR, which garantees better the write permission.
The script also uses /bin/sh (/bin/bash breaks
Rob,
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 15:27, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Darren Freeman wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.. maybe a wrapper shell script could be added instead, which
> > runs LyX through gdb and records anything interesting.. followed by
>
> Darren,
>
> I've tried your script. It's cute and it works
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 22:40, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Darren,
>
> Have a look at the attached script.
I'm trying it now, and changing what I want to.
These are my thoughts:
1) Running lyxdbg0.2 with no command line options should try to work out
what lyx to run, or give an error message, not run
Darren Freeman wrote:
Interesting.. maybe a wrapper shell script could be added instead, which
runs LyX through gdb and records anything interesting.. followed by
Darren,
I've tried your script. It's cute and it works here on my FreeBSD system
as well. But gdb is so slow in the startup, the
Darren Freeman wrote:
Interesting.. maybe a wrapper shell script could be added instead, which
runs LyX through gdb and records anything interesting.. followed by
Darren,
I've tried your script. It's cute and it works here on my FreeBSD system
as well. But gdb is so slow in the startup, the
Dear list,
Mozilla 1.2 just came out. I found something interesting at the top of
the release announcements page:
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
--88---
Please use Talkback builds whenever possible. Talkback enabled builds
allow transmission of crash data back
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:19:27AM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
There are plenty of possibilities, maybe it's even enough for a separate
project to create a crash dump library for GPLed projects. The Mozilla
source might be a good place to start...
From what I've seen so far the Mozilla source
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 00:21, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:19:27AM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
There are plenty of possibilities, maybe it's even enough for a separate
project to create a crash dump library for GPLed projects. The Mozilla
source might be a good place to
Dear list,
Mozilla 1.2 just came out. I found something interesting at the top of
the release announcements page:
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
--8<8<---
Please use Talkback builds whenever possible. Talkback enabled builds
allow transmission of crash dat
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:19:27AM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
> There are plenty of possibilities, maybe it's even enough for a separate
> project to create a crash dump library for GPLed projects. The Mozilla
> source might be a good place to start...
>From what I've seen so far the Mozilla
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 00:21, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:19:27AM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote:
> > There are plenty of possibilities, maybe it's even enough for a separate
> > project to create a crash dump library for GPLed projects. The Mozilla
> > source might be a good
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right.
Why not?
When defined it is defined as
#define USE_CAPTION 1
so that both ifdef and if will work.
| Furthermore, if we
| /did/ define it, it wouldn't compile. Remove it ?
Nah..
--
Lgb
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:37:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right.
Why not?
When defined it is defined as
#define USE_CAPTION 1
so that both ifdef and if will work.
lol. Then I come along and say ooh, disable the code, I do :
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:37:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right.
Why not?
When defined it is defined as
#define USE_CAPTION 1
so that both ifdef and if will work.
| lol. Then I come along
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:23:44PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| #define USE_CAPTION 0
bad move...
#undef USE_CAPTION
is the only right thing to do...
Now tell me something I don't know.
| Of course it's not right to use both ifdef and if !!
pptttrrrpptt!
A-ha ! You admit
On Tuesday 15 October 2002 18:28, John Levon wrote:
// The is the compability reading of layout caption.
// It can be removed in LyX version 1.3.0. (Lgb)
john kill dead code goddamn it levon
This was one of the reasons to jump from 215 to 216. Even if
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:23:44PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| #define USE_CAPTION 0
bad move...
#undef USE_CAPTION
is the only right thing to do...
| Now tell me something I don't know.
| Of course it's not right to use both ifdef and
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right.
Why not?
When defined it is defined as
#define USE_CAPTION 1
so that both ifdef and if will work.
| Furthermore, if we
| /did/ define it, it wouldn't compile. Remove it ?
Nah..
--
Lgb
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:37:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right.
>
> Why not?
>
> When defined it is defined as
>
> #define USE_CAPTION 1
>
> so that both ifdef and if will work.
lol. Then I come along and say ooh, disable the code, I
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:37:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> | we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> When defined it is defined as
>>
>> #define USE_CAPTION 1
>>
>> so that both ifdef and if will work.
>
|
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:23:44PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | #define USE_CAPTION 0
>
> bad move...
>
> #undef USE_CAPTION
>
> is the only right thing to do...
Now tell me something I don't know.
> | Of course it's not right to use both ifdef and if !!
>
> pptttrrrpptt!
A-ha !
On Tuesday 15 October 2002 18:28, John Levon wrote:
>
> // The is the compability reading of layout caption.
> // It can be removed in LyX version 1.3.0. (Lgb)
>
> john "kill dead code goddamn it" levon
This was one of the reasons to jump from 215 to 216. Even
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:23:44PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> | #define USE_CAPTION 0
>>
>> bad move...
>>
>> #undef USE_CAPTION
>>
>> is the only right thing to do...
>
| Now tell me something I don't know.
>
>> | Of course it's not right
we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right. Furthermore, if we
/did/ define it, it wouldn't compile. Remove it ?
john
--
That's just kitten-eating wrong.
- Richard Henderson
we do #ifdef and #if on it. That can't be right. Furthermore, if we
/did/ define it, it wouldn't compile. Remove it ?
john
--
"That's just kitten-eating wrong."
- Richard Henderson
Charpentier == Charpentier Philippe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, it is the only solution now. Would the solution I outlined
(with a new DependsOn tag) suit you in this case?
Charpentier It seems to me that it is a good solution which solve
Charpentier elegantly my problem with theorems.
> "Charpentier" == Charpentier Philippe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, it is the only solution now. Would the solution I outlined
>> (with a new DependsOn tag) suit you in this case?
Charpentier> It seems to me that it is a good solution which solve
Charpentier> elegantly my problem
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Lyx 1.2 - Badvalue id:24 error - could be X server color depth related
Hi,
I've just compiled up lyx-1.2 under Solaris 8 and get the following
error when starting it:
BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) id: 24
Abort
I did a bit
"Surinder S. Dio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Lyx 1.2 - Badvalue id:24 error - could be X server color depth related
Hi,
I've just compiled up lyx-1.2 under Solaris 8 and get the following
error when starting it:
BadValue (integer parameter out of range fo
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| You've changed your tune !
| Why should I fix your bug :P
Why do you think this is my bug?
| sure it is, otherwise why did you :
| a) ask for help with implementing the
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
You have to do it from the other side, the minibuffer does not
control anything, it gets controlled by others. (in this case the
LyXFunc).
So a click on the minibuffer area would have to ask he lyxfunc if it
chould
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> | You've changed your tune !
>> >
>> | Why should I fix your bug :P
>>
>> Why do you think this is my bug?
>
| sure it is, otherwise why did you :
>
| a) ask for help with
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> You have to do it from the "other" side, the minibuffer does not
> control anything, it gets controlled by others. (in this case the
> LyXFunc).
>
> So a click on the minibuffer area would have to ask he lyxfunc if it
>
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:50:49PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| 2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
Sure go ahead...
| You've changed your tune !
| Why should I fix your bug :P
Why do you think this is my
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| You've changed your tune !
| Why should I fix your bug :P
Why do you think this is my bug?
sure it is, otherwise why did you :
a) ask for help with implementing the completion drop down
b) claim it was impossible to
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:50:49PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> | 2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
>>
>> Sure go ahead...
>
| You've changed your tune !
>
| Why should I fix your bug :P
Why do you think
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | You've changed your tune !
> >
> | Why should I fix your bug :P
>
> Why do you think this is my bug?
sure it is, otherwise why did you :
a) ask for help with implementing the completion drop down
b) claim it was
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:50:49PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| 2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
Sure go ahead...
You've changed your tune !
Why should I fix your bug :P
john
--
All is change; all yields its place and goes
-
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:50:49PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | 2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
>
> Sure go ahead...
You've changed your tune !
Why should I fix your bug :P
john
--
"All is change; all yields its place and goes"
-
Philippe == Philippe Charpentier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philippe I think it is the simplest way, but if the second Preamble
Philippe is write in the latex preamble before the first one I get an
Philippe error (of course the second layout cannot be used before the
Philippe first one!) If I
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Philippe == Philippe Charpentier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philippe I think it is the simplest way, but if the second Preamble
Philippe is write in the latex preamble before the first one I get an
Philippe error (of course the second layout cannot be used before the
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:55:39PM +0200, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
Alt-x works!
thanks
2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
john
--
All is change; all yields its place and goes
- Euripides
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:55:39PM +0200, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
Alt-x works!
thanks
| 2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
Sure go ahead...
--
Lgb
> "Philippe" == Philippe Charpentier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philippe> I think it is the simplest way, but if the second Preamble
Philippe> is write in the latex preamble before the first one I get an
Philippe> error (of course the second layout cannot be used before the
Philippe> first
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>"Philippe" == Philippe Charpentier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
>Philippe> I think it is the simplest way, but if the second Preamble
>Philippe> is write in the latex preamble before the first one I get an
>Philippe> error (of course the second layout
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:55:39PM +0200, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
> Alt-x works!
>
> thanks
2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
john
--
"All is change; all yields its place and goes"
- Euripides
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:55:39PM +0200, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
>
>> Alt-x works!
>>
>> thanks
>
| 2nd user confused by this in so many days. Can we please fix this now ?
Sure go ahead...
--
Lgb
Philippe == Philippe Charpentier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philippe I recently test the new version 1.2 of LyX. The work done by
Philippe the developers is impresive. But I encountred the following
Philippe problem. I wrote some document class for LyX containing many
Philippe layouts
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:41:03PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
2/ Add a new tag 'DependsOn' (followed by a style name) in Style
definitions, that ensures that the preamble of the DependsOn style is
output before the current one. In your case, it would give something
like
This is the
Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:41:03PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Dekel wrote:
2/ Add a new tag 'DependsOn' (followed by a style name) in Style
definitions, that ensures that the preamble of the DependsOn style
is output before the current
Le mar 11/06/2002 à 16:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
This is solved in ams layouts by defining some of the stuff in the
main preamble:
Preamble
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\numberwithin{equation}{section} %% Comment out for
>>>>> "Philippe" == Philippe Charpentier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philippe> I recently test the new version 1.2 of LyX. The work done by
Philippe> the developers is impresive. But I encountred the following
Philippe> problem. I wrote some documen
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:41:03PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> 2/ Add a new tag 'DependsOn' (followed by a style name) in Style
> definitions, that ensures that the preamble of the DependsOn style is
> output before the current one. In your case, it would give something
> like
This is
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:41:03PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Dekel> wrote:
>> 2/ Add a new tag 'DependsOn' (followed by a style name) in Style
>> definitions, that ensures that the preamble of the DependsOn style
>> is output
Le mar 11/06/2002 à 16:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
> This is solved in ams layouts by defining some of the stuff in the
> main preamble:
>
> Preamble
> \theoremstyle{plain}
> \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
> \numberwithin{equation}{section} %% Comment out for
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
