On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:08:53 +0200 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 13/10/2015 19:47, Steve Litt a écrit : > >> A bit too minimal, then. Complain to them :) > > > I'm not going to complain to Void. > > As the smiley tried to convey, "complain" here was a shorter version > of "ask kindly if LyX could be added". Oh, it's there alright, but doesn't work on my books. If it were merely a matter of adding LyX, I might have added the package myself. > > > LyX is the only piece of software > > didn't work on Void, but Void is not the only environment I've had > > trouble with LyX. I've had trouble compiling LyX on most of my > > upgrades. Ever since the end of xforms, you've needed just the right > > Qt4 version combination. > > I have doubts about this last assertion, to be frank. While I agree > that the Qt5 situation seems murky (I still use Qt 4 here), I never > had that much problems of requiring precise versions. I've had this problem several times, over several years. Many years ago LyX required too modern a Qt4 version for my distro, engendering a lively conversation: http://lyx.475766.n2.nabble.com/Why-oh-why-did-you-drop-xforms-td479152.html This time, Void has qt5 and no qt4, so I can't compile my own LyX. I have no idea how they compiled the LyX they package. Also, I'm not positive the problem is exclusively LyX. There are so many variables that it would have taken a loooong time to determine whether the problem is in LyX or in Void's LaTeX implementation. I spent over 10 hours and then just ran it on a Qemu Ubuntu VM. > > If you describe what kind of problems you get when building LyX, I am > sure we can come up with some solutions. It tells me I have no qt4, which is apparently true. When I asked the Void guys where the qt4 package was, they said "qt5 is our qt." This turns out not to be a problem with anything except LyX, or at least so far. qt5-5.5.0_5 SteveT
