I have a 64 bit Windows 7 installation. The install of Lyx version 167-4-25
went
very smoothly. However, when it came up the text on the screen was
virtually
unintelligible. I brought up the DVI and printed it out and that was just
fine.
After playing with it for a while I believe the
I have a 64 bit Windows 7 installation. The install of Lyx version 167-4-25
went
very smoothly. However, when it came up the text on the screen was
virtually
unintelligible. I brought up the DVI and printed it out and that was just
fine.
After playing with it for a while I believe the
Is it insets in general? I have some ERT insets inside minipage insets, and
they're darned slow at the moment. Quite speedy last week.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:54:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Andre, what is the source of the table slowness at the moment ?
Just trying to catch up
Is it insets in general? I have some ERT insets inside minipage insets, and
they're darned slow at the moment. Quite speedy last week.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:54:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Andre, what is the source of the table slowness at the moment ?
>
> Just trying to catch up
>
Would it be possible to create a user preference item that would cause
spellchecker to always review the entire document, instead of from the current
cursor position to the end of the document?
I can't remember a single time I've ever wanted to use spellchecker, the way
that it currently works.
How going from the current cursor position to the end, asking whether to
continue from beginning?, then continuing until back to where you started.
That's the typical behavior of word processors, I believe.
Is that where LyX is headed?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 06:19:13PM +0100, John Levon
Thanks! Macros can change the game considerably, I see.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to create a user preference item that would cause
spellchecker to always review the entire
Would it be possible to create a user preference item that would cause
spellchecker to always review the entire document, instead of from the current
cursor position to the end of the document?
I can't remember a single time I've ever wanted to use spellchecker, the way
that it currently works.
How going from the current cursor position to the end, asking whether to
"continue from beginning?", then continuing until back to where you started.
That's the typical behavior of word processors, I believe.
Is that where LyX is headed?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 06:19:13PM +0100, John Levon
Thanks! Macros can change the game considerably, I see.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to create a user preference item that would cause
> > spellchecker to always review the entire
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:15:26PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
...Preferences-Lang OptsLanguageMark foreign
Thanks. Couldn't find that one. With this available, the function
certainly makes sense.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:39:48AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
, it is desired that LyX should automatically change the language of
the copied text to American, and then the user should fix the spelling.
And what if it's *not* intended to be a single-language document ? You
just broke my
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:15:26PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> ...Preferences->Lang Opts>Language>Mark foreign <>
Thanks. Couldn't find that one. With this available, the function
certainly makes sense.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:39:48AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> >, it is desired that LyX should automatically change the language of
> > the copied text to American, and then the user should fix the spelling.
>
> And what if it's *not* intended to be a single-language document ? You
> just
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 02:53:19AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Blue underlining means different language (and you can turn it off if
you like)
I see what is happening.
British and American language specified documents are shared among our offices.
Cutting and pasting between them is triggering
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:53:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the
| effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of which
| have been outlined on this list over
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 02:53:19AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Blue underlining means different language (and you can turn it off if
> you like)
I see what is happening.
British and American language specified documents are shared among our offices.
Cutting and pasting between them is
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:53:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> | As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the
> | effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of which
> | have been outlined on this list
of new users plus the total number of users who
switch.
Larry Marso wrote:
Gadzooks! The greatest good for the greatest number? Strict
utilitarianism!
If it weren't for the utilitarian value of LyX, I'd be happy with vi editing
.tex files like I used to.
Er, that's utilitarianism
Kuba responded to three of my postings on this thread. Please Lars, can I
write a brief response without you trying to reignite a week-old flame war?
As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the
effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of
gt; > > exceed the total number of new users plus the total number of users who
> > > switch.
> > Larry Marso wrote:
> > Gadzooks! The greatest good for the greatest number? Strict
> > utilitarianism!
>
> If it weren't for the utilitarian value of LyX,
Kuba responded to three of my postings on this thread. Please Lars, can I
write a brief response without you trying to reignite a week-old flame war?
As to your request for specifics, I haven't decided whether it's worth the
effort to dredge up and advocate past ambitious proposals, a subset of
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:48:17PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Then get a source control system, and use it...
That's rich.
Unfortunately, I've put LyX in the hands of some less-than-power users.
Why does using minipage instead of ERT directly provide *any* extra
protection ? You've lost
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 04:43:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:52:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't need to be a power user to use source control, and depending
on your circumstances, the user may not even need to see the SCS at all
True, but it wouldn't
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:48:17PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Then get a source control system, and use it...
That's rich.
Unfortunately, I've put LyX in the hands of some less-than-power users.
> Why does using minipage instead of ERT directly provide *any* extra
> protection ? You've
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 04:43:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:52:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You don't need to be a power user to use source control, and depending
> on your circumstances, the user may not even need to see the SCS at all
True, but it
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
larry I was rather shrill about the QT effort, in particular. In
larry light of Trolltech's dual support for Unix and Windows, the QT
larry frontend has always seemed destined to run aground on precisely
larry this issue
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
[...] is bad because people might break the rules?
Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard
practice is, indeed, bad. That's an indictment of Troll Tech's practices, not
LyX or QT development by
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:37:45AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
So what you are actually proposing is that the current developers or
whoever distributes LyX (including Kayvan, the Linux distributors etc)
take some legal risk just for the benefit of a random Windows user that's
neither able to
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
Because LyX without the 'GUII effort' and further cleanups is in a state
where adding new features is very difficult. Moreover, even if adding a
new feature turns out to be possible it most likely adds to the current
mess and
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find
- Layout - Document
- Layout - Paragraph
- Layout - Character
very logical now.
Interestingly, over my many years of using LyX, I've watched other word
processing
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:49:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Fundamental changes sometimes cause problems during periods of
transition. This does not necessarily imply the change is bad.
Of course not.
But as an infrequent observer over a period of years, it's really striking to
see that in
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:45:42PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I think you are now fudding all over the place.
What I find most remarkable about this discussion, Lars, is the emails I've
received from sympathetic readers who don't want to have to deal with the
ramifications of posting
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:10:54AM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
Do you have any examples? Be as specific as you can.
Kayvan, I returned to evaluate whether to jump back into the LyX effort over a
period of weeks and months (as I said in one of my first postings in 2003).
Those focused on
ERT can play an important role in creating templates, allowing for insertion of
raw LaTeX at key points throughout a document.
However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
items of LaTeX be locked, so they may not be casually erased.
In fact, I would find this
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:06:27PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:40:45AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
items of LaTeX be locked, so they may not be casually erased.
But I don't like the
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:18:21AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Therefore an alternative proposal: what about introducing an inset --
we could call it InsetProtected -- that protects everything inside it
from deletion? A little easier to code on the document level. And the
thing remains
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:32:54PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
You have so far provided a lot of statements about the development of
lyx and the lack of new features, about what has been done to the code
and not, and what we have lost because of the drive for GUII.
I've certainly said
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Some content from Larry ! :)
Very funny, John.
Any permutation is a distribution of some kind. This change in
particular reflects the general move to an object-verb interface instead
of a verb-object interface. Menus in general
What do you propose be done if someone builds and posts binaries somewhere
else? Which is inevitable.
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:23:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
Well, distributing the sources of the native version without the
binaries is really hypocritical, I think. If these source
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:12:40AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
And _who_ are you to tell people what they should use their spare time
on?
Put up or shut up, you are really beginning to annoy me now.
Making fundamental UI changes, for functions that have been around for
what, six or
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:19:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
ERTs that is part of a paragraph _must_ be deleted if the paragraph as
a whole is deleted.
ERTs that is a paragraph of its own might need to be locked.
Well, I suppose one could disqualify deletion of a block of text is a
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:45:24AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
And there are two things here:
- locking the contents of the instet from alteration
- making the inset be indeletable.
I have sympathy with the first one, I have problems with the second
one.
From the
Editing text, if you insert hit a space at the end of a word (with other
words already typed after it), then cntrl-right arrow to jump forward one word,
then you are left with 2x blank spaces in the text which persist.
I imagine this is buggy behavior.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:51:52AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
- feature requests
As I said, over a period of weeks and months, if I decide to become more
involved, I'll sift through my old archives and attempt to reintroduce some of
the nifty but long-abandoned historical
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:22:53AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
With templates we can have a .layout keyword. For documents in general,
either the change tracking, or the standard Undo/Revert stuff will do
IMO.
Not sure I get your point about .layout.
The problem I'm thinking about is the
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse menu
layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever exceed the
total number of new users plus the total number of users who switch.
Gadzooks!
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:53:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
If it canot be said out in the open... is it then worth saying?
(as long as it concerns lyx?)
Certainly, the LyX community should strive for an open atmosphere inviting of
comment and feedback, where such an ethos can
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> larry> I was rather shrill about the QT effort, in particular. In
> larry> light of Trolltech's dual support for Unix and Windows, the QT
> larry> frontend has always seemed destined to run aground
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> [...] is bad because people might break the rules?
Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard
practice is, indeed, bad. That's an indictment of Troll Tech's practices, not
LyX or QT development by
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:37:45AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> So what you are actually proposing is that the current developers or
> whoever distributes LyX (including Kayvan, the Linux distributors etc)
> take some legal risk just for the benefit of a random Windows user that's
> neither
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:05:23AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Because LyX without the 'GUII effort' and further cleanups is in a state
> where adding new features is very difficult. Moreover, even if adding a
> new feature turns out to be possible it most likely adds to the current
> mess
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find
>
> - Layout -> Document
> - Layout -> Paragraph
> - Layout -> Character
>
> very logical now.
Interestingly, over my many years of using LyX, I've watched other word
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:49:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Fundamental changes sometimes cause problems during periods of
> transition. This does not necessarily imply the change is bad.
Of course not.
But as an infrequent observer over a period of years, it's really striking to
see that
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:45:42PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I think you are now fudding all over the place.
What I find most remarkable about this discussion, Lars, is the emails I've
received from sympathetic readers who don't want to have to deal with the
"ramifications" of posting
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:10:54AM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> Do you have any examples? Be as specific as you can.
Kayvan, I returned to evaluate whether to jump back into the LyX effort over a
period of weeks and months (as I said in one of my first postings in 2003).
Those focused on
ERT can play an important role in creating templates, allowing for insertion of
raw LaTeX at key points throughout a document.
However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
items of LaTeX be "locked", so they may not be casually erased.
In fact, I would find this
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:06:27PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:40:45AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > However, for inexperienced users using a template, it may be important that
> > items of LaTeX be "locked", so they may not be casually erased.
>
> But I don't
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:18:21AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> Therefore an alternative proposal: what about introducing an inset --
> we could call it InsetProtected -- that protects everything inside it
> from deletion? A little easier to code on the document level. And the
> thing remains
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:32:54PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> You have so far provided a lot of statements about the development of
> lyx and the lack of new features, about what has been done to the code
> and not, and what we have lost because of the drive for GUII.
I've certainly
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:54PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Some content from Larry ! :)
Very funny, John.
> Any permutation is a distribution of some kind. This change in
> particular reflects the general move to an object-verb interface instead
> of a verb-object i
What do you propose be done if someone builds and posts binaries somewhere
else? Which is inevitable.
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:23:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > Well, distributing the sources of the native version without the
> > binaries is really hypocritical, I think. If these
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:12:40AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> And _who_ are you to tell people what they should use their spare time
> on?
>
> Put up or shut up, you are really beginning to annoy me now.
Making fundamental UI changes, for functions that have been around for
what,
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:19:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> ERTs that is part of a paragraph _must_ be deleted if the paragraph as
> a whole is deleted.
>
> ERTs that is a paragraph of its own might need to be locked.
Well, I suppose one could disqualify deletion of a block of text
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:45:24AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> And there are two things here:
> - locking the contents of the instet from alteration
> - making the inset be indeletable.
>
> I have sympathy with the first one, I have problems with the second
> one.
>From
Editing text, if you insert hit a "space" at the end of a word (with other
words already typed after it), then cntrl-right arrow to jump forward one word,
then you are left with 2x blank spaces in the text which persist.
I imagine this is buggy behavior.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:51:52AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> - feature requests
As I said, over a period of weeks and months, if I decide to become more
involved, I'll sift through my old archives and attempt to reintroduce some of
the nifty but long-abandoned historical
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:22:53AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> With templates we can have a .layout keyword. For documents in general,
> either the change tracking, or the standard Undo/Revert stuff will do
> IMO.
Not sure I get your point about .layout.
The problem I'm thinking about is the
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:15:49AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> Whilst this is true, it would only make real sense to keep with a worse menu
> layout if we expect the total number of current users to forever exceed the
> total number of new users plus the total number of users who switch.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:53:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> If it canot be said out in the open... is it then worth saying?
> (as long as it concerns lyx?)
Certainly, the LyX community should strive for an open atmosphere inviting of
comment and feedback, where such an ethos can
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:25:58PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
This isn't true: the licensing scheme is clearly documented. We were and
are well aware of its drawbacks.
I didn't exactly start questioning the QT effort yesterday, as you well know.
No one would doubt your understanding of the
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:47:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground ...
It's frankly a waste of my time ...
You obviously have no conception ...
You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything...
You're arguing against a chimera I'm afraid ...
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:25:58PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> This isn't true: the licensing scheme is clearly documented. We were and
> are well aware of its drawbacks.
I didn't exactly start questioning the QT effort yesterday, as you well know.
No one would doubt your understanding of the
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 07:47:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Sorry, your head is stuck in the ground ...
> It's frankly a waste of my time ...
> You obviously have no conception ...
> You're making statements. You're not actually saying anything...
> You're arguing against a chimera I'm afraid
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Some context: Ruurd would like us to distribute this port (the binaries for
now), but this is only possible if we change our license to explicitly allow
for linking against Qt non-commercial binary-only version.
Unless I'm
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:16:31AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Troll Tech business model and
licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this
untenable position if developers wish to release Windows versions.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Some context: Ruurd would like us to distribute this port (the binaries for
> now), but this is only possible if we change our license to explicitly allow
> for linking against Qt non-commercial binary-only version.
Unless
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:16:31AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Troll Tech business model and
> > licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this
> > untenable position if developers wish to release Windows
Hmm. I have lots of functioning qt apps under 3.1.2 with submenu navigation by
keyboard shortcuts, but a broken LyX in this regard. Does the LyX qt frontend
do something unusual, triggering this bug?
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:12:49AM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Fernando Perez wrote:
- Forwarded message from Micha H. Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Micha H. Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Universität Freiburg
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LyX-Problem
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:07:34 +0200
Hello Larry,
I have the same problem like you with sub-menues
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:32:36AM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Not that I am aware of. Have your qt apps all been complied against the same
qt version than LyX?
Well, as you've found some evidence of this in the qt/kde community and other
apps, apparently not.
Can anyone assemble a
Hmm. I have lots of functioning qt apps under 3.1.2 with submenu navigation by
keyboard shortcuts, but a broken LyX in this regard. Does the LyX qt frontend
do something unusual, triggering this bug?
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:12:49AM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Fernando Perez wrote:
>
- Forwarded message from "Micha H. Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "Micha H. Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Universität Freiburg
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LyX-Problem
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:07:34 +0200
Hello Larry,
I have the same
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:32:36AM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
>
> Not that I am aware of. Have your qt apps all been complied against the same
> qt version than LyX?
Well, as you've found some evidence of this in the qt/kde community and other
apps, apparently not.
Can anyone assemble
No one has any ideas???
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 09:50:55AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting. Running under GDB, the error not only crashes LyX, it causes the
KDE window manager to lock up, and it doesn't seem recoverable.
That means I can't run, cut and paste bt easily.
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:25:26PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
You may need to issue
ulimit -c unlimited
to enable core dumps.
Then do
gdb core.PID lyx
and then please post the output of 'bt' to the list.
Alfredo:
Thanks for the brief tutorial.
Here is the bt:
(gdb) bt
#0
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:42:57PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
This is entirely within Qt, we have no control over it. Possible causes
are a compiler bug or some weird library mismatch.
Be that as it may, it is endemic to redhat 9, as updated by redhat's
own update rpms. A rather widely used
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:09:38PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Why aren't we seeing lots of reports then ?
Hop on over to lyx-users. You'll see reports also by:
Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also, if you didn't notice, here on lyx-devel, it's also
No one has any ideas???
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 09:50:55AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Interesting. Running under GDB, the error not only crashes LyX, it causes the
> KDE window manager to lock up, and it doesn't seem recoverable.
>
> That means I can't run, cut and paste "bt" easily.
>
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:25:26PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> You may need to issue
> ulimit -c unlimited
> to enable core dumps.
>
> Then do
> gdb core.PID lyx
> and then please post the output of 'bt' to the list.
Alfredo:
Thanks for the brief tutorial.
Here is the bt:
(gdb) bt
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:42:57PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> This is entirely within Qt, we have no control over it. Possible causes
> are a compiler bug or some weird library mismatch.
Be that as it may, it is endemic to redhat 9, as updated by redhat's
own update rpms. A rather widely used
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:09:38PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Why aren't we seeing lots of reports then ?
Hop on over to lyx-users. You'll see reports also by:
Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Also, if you didn't notice, here on lyx-devel, it's
Interesting. Running under GDB, the error not only crashes LyX, it causes the
KDE window manager to lock up, and it doesn't seem recoverable.
That means I can't run, cut and paste bt easily.
However, the following line appears under gdb at the time of the crash:
Program received signal
In a LyX document, you cannot insert the raw latex command
\setcounter{enumi}{3} (for example)
into any position where it will change the label of the first enumerated point
in a list.
If you insert it before the first point, which is outside the list environment,
it has no effect.
Interesting. Running under GDB, the error not only crashes LyX, it causes the
KDE window manager to lock up, and it doesn't seem recoverable.
That means I can't run, cut and paste "bt" easily.
However, the following line appears under gdb at the time of the crash:
Program received
In a LyX document, you cannot insert the raw latex command
\setcounter{enumi}{3} (for example)
into any position where it will change the label of the first enumerated point
in a list.
If you insert it before the first point, which is outside the list environment,
it has no effect.
I'm experiencing consistent failures and core dumps using the keyboard to
access sub-menu items in LyX 1.3.2 using the qt front-end.
For example:
alt-I (Insert)
brings up the first menu, but then
alt-S (Special Character)
fails to bring up the submenu. Nothing happens.
Is there no one else who can address this?
Is LyX 1.3.2 -- including the qt front-end code -- considered finished,
in the can, a part of the past, with the obvious focus on 1.4.0cvs?
Is qt-3.1.2 not the right version? Or is the qt front-end for LyX still not
suited to serious usage?
On Thu,
I've sent the backtrace to Alfredo. Any body else want it?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:03:03PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there no one else who can address this?
qt version? lyx compiled by yourself or specific rpm?
I cannot reproduce it, and it's the
I'm experiencing consistent failures and core dumps using the keyboard to
access sub-menu items in LyX 1.3.2 using the qt front-end.
For example:
alt-I (Insert)
brings up the first menu, but then
alt-S (Special Character)
fails to bring up the submenu. Nothing happens.
1 - 100 of 435 matches
Mail list logo
