On 04/05/2018 06:13 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 05.04.2018 um 03:02 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
>> have created an
>> installer that is as automatic as it can be. Many of the rest of us have
>> real doubts about the wisdom of this,
> That is what annoys me. You doubt that I am wise enough to set up LyX
> for Windows users. 

First of all, I specificially said that THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE WE ARE
not sure why you're insisting upon discussing it. But since you are: I
do not doubt that you
are wise enough to set up LyX for Windows users. And I understand
perfectly well why you
want to do things the way you want to do them. What I doubt is that it
is a good idea for one
person (you) to try all by yourself to manage a large collection of
complex programs and their
interactions and dependencies. That leads inevitably to the kinds of
problems we have here,
to multiple versions of the installer in response to bugs in programs we
do not control, and
so on and so forth. As JMarc pointed out, the very example you give:

> It is wrong to say, LyX is not allowed to update MiKTeX because of
> potential bugs on
> CTAN. I mean with this directive on Linux they cannot upgrade e.g. my
> Qt5 from e.g.
> 5.6 to 5.9 because there could be a regression bug in Qt5.9 that would
> affect all apps
> using Qt5. 

just makes this point. People can do these kinds of upgrades if they
like, but a stable distro
like Debian or Ubuntu LTS is going to be *very, very careful* before
doing such an update.
Even bleeding edge distros like Fedora do massive testing, though they
are willing to take
more risks, because Fedora users accept this kind of risk in using
Fedora rather than Debian
or whatever.


Reply via email to