Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 06:47:35PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> > Not even an feeble attempt at trying to help fix anything, or even look
>> > at alternative solutions.
>>
>> Lars: You lost quite a few of us. There aren't too many people left who
>> are able to help you.
>
| I can't even compile 1.3.0cvs at present because automake-1.4 just
| isn't good enough anymore.
Hmm... isn't that the case with 1.2.0 as well? No changes has been
made in that respect.
>> And a working alternative solution had been there, at least in a few cases.
>> But that's the "revert mantra" in your ears.
>
| I really would have thought that after all the talk about branches at
| various times in the last year that experimental changes like
| switching to boost::signals would have been done in a branch so if it
| didn't work it could be abandoned but kept for reference without much
| hassle or merged into the "stable" trunk if deemed successful.
Not exactly experimental...
| Despite that, it seems to be more and more necessary for LyX
| developers _and users_ to be using gcc-cvs rather than
| gcc-some-recent-release if they want to compile LyX!
Bullshit!
Please try to backup that claim.
| This might be
| reasonable if LyX were as politically big a project as the Linux
| kernel and hence could drive gcc development or have some other
| significant contribution/influence on other projects but we aren't.
>
| boost is starting to be a PITA much as XTL was before its time and
| beyond readily available compilers.
But now the compilers are available...
--
Lgb
