Re: Configure with automake-1.16

[Joel Kulesza]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck 
wrote:

> On 03/18/2018 07:52 PM, Joel Kulesza wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Joel Kulesza  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Joel Kulesza  wrote:
>>
>>> LyX Developers,
>>>
>>> Has anyone configured/built with automake-1.16?
>>>
>>> Using homebrew on MacOS, I (apparently though not deliberately)
>>> underwent an upgrade to automake 1.16 and my previous configure/make
>>> process broke.  It looks like automake version 1.15 is hardcoded into the
>>> configure script (line 3250 of configure from master@a5c859f8).  I'm
>>> sure I can repair this, but I wanted to raise the issue in case it should
>>> be addressed more generally.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>
>> I'm an idiot, please disregard this spam.
>>
>
> My apologies again; this trivial work was being done while balancing a
> three month old in my lap...
>
> Regardless, I'd forgotten that running autogen is a step that exists (and
> associated with a file living in the repo) vs. configure.  With that,
> autogen.sh (from master@a5c859f8) also doesn't permit automake 1.16.
> I've attached a patch to let autogen (and configure, make, etc.) proceed to
> completion.
>
> However, it looks as though autogen.sh was and is self-inconsistent.  Line
> 14 claims LyX requires automake >=1.14 and Lines 19/23 claimed automake
> 1.14 or 1.15 were required.  My patch only addresses the latter point
> because I'm not sure how cavalier automake version validation should be.
> My requests:
>
>1. Can a developer commit this patch after it's been cleared via
>discussion/review?
>2. Can a developer please review autogen.sh to see which condition
>(automake >= 1.14 or automake == 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, etc.) should be the one
>validated against?
>
>
> The code is as is it mostly to force us to make sure new versions actually
> do work.
> We can easily enough update it, but someone who knows more than I do about
> this
> should verify.
>

Understood.  With version 1.16 becoming available, I hope that autogen.sh
can be reviewed and updated, as appropriate.  From my perspective, 1.16
does not cause a problem.  Further, I wonder if it'd be valuable to make
the two version notices consistent despite mainly serving the purpose of
forcing a review (e.g., adjusting the earlier message to state specific
versions that have been reviewed and found acceptable rather than >= 1.14).

Thanks,
Joel

Re: Configure with automake-1.16

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 03/18/2018 07:52 PM, Joel Kulesza wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Joel Kulesza  > wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Joel Kulesza  > wrote:
>
> LyX Developers,
>
> Has anyone configured/built with automake-1.16?  
>
> Using homebrew on MacOS, I (apparently though not
> deliberately) underwent an upgrade to automake 1.16 and my
> previous configure/make process broke.  It looks like automake
> version 1.15 is hardcoded into the configure script (line 3250
> of configure from master@a5c859f8).  I'm sure I can repair
> this, but I wanted to raise the issue in case it should be
> addressed more generally.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Joel
>
>
> I'm an idiot, please disregard this spam.
>
>
> My apologies again; this trivial work was being done while balancing a
> three month old in my lap...  
>
> Regardless, I'd forgotten that running autogen is a step that exists
> (and associated with a file living in the repo) vs. configure.  With
> that, autogen.sh (from master@a5c859f8) also doesn't permit automake
> 1.16.  I've attached a patch to let autogen (and configure, make,
> etc.) proceed to completion.  
>
> However, it looks as though autogen.sh was and is self-inconsistent. 
> Line 14 claims LyX requires automake >=1.14 and Lines 19/23 claimed
> automake 1.14 or 1.15 were required.  My patch only addresses the
> latter point because I'm not sure how cavalier automake version
> validation should be.  My requests:
>
>  1. Can a developer commit this patch after it's been cleared via
> discussion/review?
>  2. Can a developer please review autogen.sh to see which condition
> (automake >= 1.14 or automake == 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, etc.) should be
> the one validated against?
>

The code is as is it mostly to force us to make sure new versions
actually do work.
We can easily enough update it, but someone who knows more than I do
about this
should verify.

Riki

Re: Configure with automake-1.16

[Joel Kulesza]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Joel Kulesza  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Joel Kulesza  wrote:
>
>> LyX Developers,
>>
>> Has anyone configured/built with automake-1.16?
>>
>> Using homebrew on MacOS, I (apparently though not deliberately) underwent
>> an upgrade to automake 1.16 and my previous configure/make process broke.
>> It looks like automake version 1.15 is hardcoded into the configure script
>> (line 3250 of configure from master@a5c859f8).  I'm sure I can repair
>> this, but I wanted to raise the issue in case it should be addressed more
>> generally.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joel
>>
>
> I'm an idiot, please disregard this spam.
>

My apologies again; this trivial work was being done while balancing a
three month old in my lap...

Regardless, I'd forgotten that running autogen is a step that exists (and
associated with a file living in the repo) vs. configure.  With that,
autogen.sh (from master@a5c859f8) also doesn't permit automake 1.16.  I've
attached a patch to let autogen (and configure, make, etc.) proceed to
completion.

However, it looks as though autogen.sh was and is self-inconsistent.  Line
14 claims LyX requires automake >=1.14 and Lines 19/23 claimed automake
1.14 or 1.15 were required.  My patch only addresses the latter point
because I'm not sure how cavalier automake version validation should be.
My requests:

   1. Can a developer commit this patch after it's been cleared via
   discussion/review?
   2. Can a developer please review autogen.sh to see which condition
   (automake >= 1.14 or automake == 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, etc.) should be the one
   validated against?

Thank you,
Joel


0001-Update-to-accept-automake-1.16.patch
Description: Binary data

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> Generally speaking - apart from your mom, which might indeed be better
>> served without additional info, there is also crowd of people who go mad
>> when software contain hidden "kits" which were nowhere mentioned.
>
> Sure, but people like my mother are the average users in my experience.  They
> are lost with these kind of additional info because under Windows there is no
> concept of package handling and dependencies. This concept is simply unknown
> for most users. I never forgot the experienced users. The installer already
> provides several options they can use. Just check it out to see what you can
> do.  For this particular case, see my proposal above. With this the experts
> know what to do.

I checked it out. When I used the installer I did not give me any option,
it just 'informed' that MiKTeX is going to be upgraded and forced me to
accept it. That's what I said can make some people mad and decent application
should not do without asking. 

I believe that if we add the part of the message I wrote last time which 
would simply state something along the lines "If you are not sure, the
answer is most probably Yes." anyone with basic school education would
pass the test, don't you think so?

Release notes is must read for packagers or maybe also interesting for
people who look for particular fix or feature, general audience will
not read it...

Pavel

Off-topic in this thread, but installing experience on Windows was somewhat
frustraing here, mainly because of this on-fly update miktex feature. I have
decent broadband connectivity, but it took *ages* for the update to finish the
first install. If I were to show LyX to my friend on his Windows computer I
wouldn't be able to reach basic functionality within first hour of install(!).
It's somewhat paradoxical that normal debian install which is much bigger (in
total like 2.5 GB for lyx+texlive) takes order of magnitude less time to
install (in total like 2.5 GB for lyx+texlive; surprisingly most of it is just
'doc' directory, packages+core texlive make it into some 300mb only).
Also there seems to be bug, that lyx icon does not disappear from desktop
after unistalling.

Re: LyX 2.3.0 Released

[Liviu Andronic]

On 3/16/18, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:
> Public release of LyX version 2.3.0
> 
>

Ubuntu packages are now available on the PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~lyx-devel/+archive/ubuntu/release


Regards,
Liviu


> We are proud to announce the release of LyX 2.3.0.
>
> With this release, LyX celebrates 22 years of existence. The 2.3 series
> has a rich set of new features compared to the current stable series.
>
> LyX 2.3.0 is the culmination of two years of hard work. An overview
> of the new features can be found here:
>   https://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX23
>
> You can download LyX 2.3.0 from https://www.lyx.org/Download/.
> Unfortunately, official Windows binaries are not available at this time.
>
> We hope you will enjoy the result!
>
> If a file from an earlier version of LyX is opened *and saved* with
> any version of 2.3.x, then the original file will automatically be
> backed up. The backup file will be found in the backup directory, if one
> is set under Tools> Preferences> Paths, or else in the same folder as
> the original file, if no backup directory is set. The filename of the
> backup file will be:
> ORIGNAME-lyxformat-NUM.lyx~
> where NUM is the LyX format number of the original file. In the case of
> a 2.2.x file, this will be 508, but in the case of older files it will be
> different.
>
> The file lib/RELEASE-NOTES lists some known issues and problems compared
> to the current stable releases (LyX 2.2.x). We strongly recommend that
> packagers of LyX on various platforms and distributions read this file.
>
> As with any major release, this one comes with a lot of new features but
> also some bugs. If you think you have found a bug in LyX 2.3.0, either
> email the LyX developers' mailing list (lyx-devel at lists.lyx.org),
> or open a bug report at https://www.lyx.org/trac/wiki/BugTrackerHome .
> Please specify if the behavior you are reporting is different from behavior
> in a previous LyX version.
>
> If you have trouble using LyX or have a question, consult the
> documentation that comes with LyX (under Help) and the LyX wiki, which you
> will find at https://wiki.lyx.org/. You can also send email to the LyX
> users'
> list (lyx-users at lists.lyx.org).
>
> The LyX team.
> https://www.lyx.org
>
>

Re: Configure with automake-1.16

[Joel Kulesza]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Joel Kulesza  wrote:

> LyX Developers,
>
> Has anyone configured/built with automake-1.16?
>
> Using homebrew on MacOS, I (apparently though not deliberately) underwent
> an upgrade to automake 1.16 and my previous configure/make process broke.
> It looks like automake version 1.15 is hardcoded into the configure script
> (line 3250 of configure from master@a5c859f8).  I'm sure I can repair
> this, but I wanted to raise the issue in case it should be addressed more
> generally.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Joel
>

I'm an idiot, please disregard this spam.

Configure with automake-1.16

[Joel Kulesza]

LyX Developers,

Has anyone configured/built with automake-1.16?

Using homebrew on MacOS, I (apparently though not deliberately) underwent
an upgrade to automake 1.16 and my previous configure/make process broke.
It looks like automake version 1.15 is hardcoded into the configure script
(line 3250 of configure from master@a5c859f8).  I'm sure I can repair this,
but I wanted to raise the issue in case it should be addressed more
generally.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Joel

Re: Tarballs for 2.2.4

[Stephan Witt]

Am 18.03.2018 um 14:09 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> 
> Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
>> Sources for LyX 2.2.4 are available here:
>> 
>> ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any problems with them. And please
>> prepare binaries. I'll release when they are ready.
> 
> seems to work in and properly loading newer file format (gentoo ~x86). p

I tried this on my Mac (10.11.6) and it looks good too. I’ve tested it on
Mac OSX 10.8.5 with success but couldn’t run it on Mac OSX 10.6.8 because
of the missing libc++ shared library. I couldn’t build it for i386 anymore
because of the missing thread_local implementation.

I’ll upload the packaged bundle for OSX 10.8.x or better soon.

Regards,
Stephan

Re: 2.3.1-staging Has Been Merged

[Pavel Sanda]

Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> The rebase was of 2.3.1-staging, not of 2.3.x. And it never got
> committeds, so nothing public changed.

I see. Pavel

Re: Name Change

[Kornel Benko]

Am Sonntag, 18. März 2018 17:08:24 CET schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller 
:
> Welcome on board, Riki :-)
> 
> Jürgen

+1.
That's a brave move.

Kornel

> Am Sonntag, den 18.03.2018, 12:04 -0400 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
> > Hi, everyone,
> > A few weeks ago, I had my name legally changed to "Richard Kimberly
> > Heck". My new name better reflects my identification as genderqueer
> > and, I hope, will help to signal that identity to others. My
> > intention is that my full name should hencefoth be used in any case
> > where "Richard Heck" might have been used previously.
> > I am also now "going by" the name "Riki", which I think of as a
> > nickname based upon my full name: RIchard KImberly. It has the
> > additional advantages that (phonetically) it (i) is a common nickname
> > for "Richard" and (ii) is gender neutral. I am also now using
> > singular "they" and its cognates as my pronouns.
> > 
> > I appreciate that it can be difficult to adjust to such changes. So
> > I'm not going to take offense if you refer to me as "he" or call me
> > "Richard", though I will gently correct you, if need be.
> > I've updated most of what I can think to update within LyX, but it's
> > a bit like Whack-a-Mole. My email is now rikih...@lyx.org, though rgh
> > e...@lyx.org forwards to that address. My username on trac is now also
> > rikiheck, though anything sent to rgheck also forwards (via rgheck@ly
> > x.org).
> > Best,
> > Riki



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: 2.3.1-staging Has Been Merged

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 03/18/2018 05:04 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
>> On 03/17/2018 10:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:01:58PM +, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
 Commits intended for 2.3.1 should now just go to 2.3.x, with my nod, as
 usual. Note that 2.3.2-staging is still live.
>>> How did you do the merging? I'm surprised there was no merge commit. Was
>>> that because it could be rebased? I'm just curious.
>> Yes, I rebased before merging. Magic, that.
> Does not rebasing public branch break history for other people working with 
> 2.3.x branch?

The rebase was of 2.3.1-staging, not of 2.3.x. And it never got
committeds, so nothing public changed.

Basically, I did exactly what I always do with git branches I create for
features or bug fixes:
    git checkout -b BugBranch
    ...do lots of things until it's ready
    git checkout -b BugBranch-rebase
    git rebase master
    ...fix that up some if need be
    git checkout master
    git merge BugBranch-rebase
The result is that the new commits in BugBranch just appear on top of
master.


On 03/18/2018 10:02 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> That said, I would actually prefer a "merge --no-ff".

I had not heard of that but agree it might have been preferable.

Richard

   

Re: r41185 - www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 03/18/2018 05:40 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Author: spitz
>> Date: Sun Mar 18 07:59:00 2018
>> New Revision: 41185
>> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/41185
>>
>> Log:
>> fix
>>
>> Modified:
>>www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.inc
>>
>> Modified: www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.inc
>> =
>> =
>> --- www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.incSat Mar 17
>> 21:04:20 2018(r41184)
>> +++ www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.incSun Mar 18
>> 07:59:00 2018(r41185)
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>>  // The current version
>>  $lyx_version = "2.3.1dev";
>>  // The branch tag
>> -$branch_tag = "master";
>> +$branch_tag = "2.3.x";
> Richard, I suggest that you apply the attached patch to 2.3.x in order
> to let make i18n.inc automatically set the correct $branch_tag.

Probably a good idea.

Re: Opening single quotation marks, and biblatex

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 18.03.2018, 14:47 +0100 schrieb R H van der Gaag:
> I find that opening single quotation marks are not converted to their
> curly version (UK English default). The closing ones are, and the
> double opening and closing ones as well, but to get a curly UK single
> opening quote I need to hit ` like in the old days.

Note that the quotations marks are not bound to the '-key, but to the
"-key (outer quotation mark) and M+" (inner quotation mark). The '-key, 
by contrast, is apostrophe.
(of course you can change this in Tools > Preferences > Edit >
Sortcits; the respective funtions are quote-insert and quote-insert
inner)

> Also, I found that simply switching from natbib to biblatex or
> biblatex (natbib style) doesn’t work out of the box. Parsing errors
> abound.

Please provide an example file for those errors.

Thanks
Jürgen

> 
> Kind regards, R H van der Gaag 
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Opening single quotation marks, and biblatex

[Guenter Milde]

On 2018-03-18, R H van der Gaag wrote:

> Hi, Thanks a lot for the new version! It’s very much appreciated.

> I find that o pening single quotation marks are not converted to their
> curly version (UK English default). 

How do you insert them? 

> The closing ones are, and the double opening and closing ones as well,
> but to get a curly UK single opening quote I need to hit ` like in the
> old days. 

The "-Key is bound to «quote-insert» and the Alt-"-Key to 
«quote-insert inner» by default while the '-Key self-inserts (i.e. it
inserts a ' character (0027 APOSTROPHE), the
neutral (vertical) glyph with mixed usage.

* 2019 is preferred for apostrophe
* preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are 2018 & 2019

You may want to bind «quote-insert inner» to the '-Key.

Günter

Re: 2.3.1-staging Has Been Merged

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 09:04:08AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > On 03/17/2018 10:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:01:58PM +, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > >> Commits intended for 2.3.1 should now just go to 2.3.x, with my nod, as
> > >> usual. Note that 2.3.2-staging is still live.
> > > How did you do the merging? I'm surprised there was no merge commit. Was
> > > that because it could be rebased? I'm just curious.
> > 
> > Yes, I rebased before merging. Magic, that.
> 
> Does not rebasing public branch break history for other people working with 
> 2.3.x branch?

Not in the case where no history needs to be rewritten. The patches just
feel on top of 2.3.0. So it was the same as what I think Git refers to
as a "fast forward".

That said, I would actually prefer a "merge --no-ff". This contains
information of when the branch was merged, and where the commits came
from (i.e. which branch was merged). For example, we can look back and
see when 2.3.1-staging was merged, and whether 2.3.2-staging was merged
for 2.3.1 or whether we saved that for after 2.3.1 was released.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Opening single quotation marks, and biblatex

[R H van der Gaag]

Hi, Thanks a lot for the new version! It’s very much appreciated.
I find that o pening single quotation marks are not converted to their curly 
version (UK English default). The closing ones are, and the double opening and 
closing ones as well, but to get a curly UK single opening quote I need to hit 
` like in the old days.
Also, I found that simply switching from natbib to biblatex or biblatex (natbib 
style) doesn’t work out of the box. Parsing errors abound.
Kind regards, R H van der Gaag

Re: Tarballs for 2.2.4

[Pavel Sanda]

Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> Sources for LyX 2.2.4 are available here:
> 
>     ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/
> 
> Please let me know if you have any problems with them. And please
> prepare binaries. I'll release when they are ready.

seems to work in and properly loading newer file format (gentoo ~x86). p

Re: r41185 - www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

> Author: spitz
> Date: Sun Mar 18 07:59:00 2018
> New Revision: 41185
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/41185
> 
> Log:
> fix
> 
> Modified:
>www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.inc
> 
> Modified: www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.inc
> =
> =
> --- www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.inc Sat Mar 17
> 21:04:20 2018 (r41184)
> +++ www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX/i18n.inc Sun Mar 18
> 07:59:00 2018 (r41185)
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  // The current version
>  $lyx_version = "2.3.1dev";
>  // The branch tag
> -$branch_tag = "master";
> +$branch_tag = "2.3.x";

Richard, I suggest that you apply the attached patch to 2.3.x in order
to let make i18n.inc automatically set the correct $branch_tag.

Jürgen

diff --git a/po/postats.py b/po/postats.py
index fe486517c0..068377f71c 100755
--- a/po/postats.py
+++ b/po/postats.py
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ from __future__ import print_function
 # modify this when you change branch
 # Note that an empty lyx_branch variable (ie svn trunk)
 # will "do the right thing".
-lyx_branch=""
+lyx_branch="2.3.x"
 # these po-files will be skipped:
 ommitted = ('en.po')
 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Translation pages

[Jean-Pierre Chrétien]

Le 18/03/2018 à 10:12, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :

Am Sonntag, den 18.03.2018, 09:36 +0100 schrieb Jean-Pierre Chrétien:

Dear Richard, dear Scott

In both pages

https://www.lyx.org/I18n
https://www.lyx.org/I18n-trunk

I am alloted the responsibility for the Finnish translation...


Also in the po files as of
https://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/74106b9960c853/lyxgit/


OK, I understand now that the info was extracted from the po file.


I'll correct that.


Thanks

--
Jean-Pierre

Re: Translation pages

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 18.03.2018, 09:36 +0100 schrieb Jean-Pierre Chrétien:
> Dear Richard, dear Scott
> 
> In both pages
> 
> https://www.lyx.org/I18n
> https://www.lyx.org/I18n-trunk
> 
> I am alloted the responsibility for the Finnish translation...

Also in the po files as of
https://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/74106b9960c853/lyxgit/

I'll correct that.

Jürgen

> 
> Congrats for the great work on releases.
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: 2.3.1-staging Has Been Merged

[Pavel Sanda]

Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 03/17/2018 10:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:01:58PM +, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >> Commits intended for 2.3.1 should now just go to 2.3.x, with my nod, as
> >> usual. Note that 2.3.2-staging is still live.
> > How did you do the merging? I'm surprised there was no merge commit. Was
> > that because it could be rebased? I'm just curious.
> 
> Yes, I rebased before merging. Magic, that.

Does not rebasing public branch break history for other people working with 
2.3.x branch?
P

Re: Tarballs for 2.2.4

[Jean-Pierre Chrétien]

Le 17/03/2018 à 19:13, Richard Kimberly Heck a écrit :

Sources for LyX 2.2.4 are available here:

     ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/

Please let me know if you have any problems with them. And please
prepare binaries. I'll release when they are ready.


Compiles and runs fine on Debian Stretch.

--
Jean-Pierre

Translation pages

[Jean-Pierre Chrétien]

Dear Richard, dear Scott

In both pages

https://www.lyx.org/I18n
https://www.lyx.org/I18n-trunk

I am alloted the responsibility for the Finnish translation...

Congrats for the great work on releases.

--
Jean-Pierre

Re: Trac Links to HTTPS

[Pavel Sanda]

Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > That would help when I click on one of those old links sent by trac
> > notifications.
> >
> > Google.com or mozilla.org do redirect to https.
> 
> https redirects have now been established for lyx.org, wiki.lyx.org, and
> git.lyx.org.  Please let me know if there are any problems.

That's a good news, I plan to move to https for download as default instead of
ftp soon.

Pavel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Samstag, den 17.03.2018, 21:32 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> I agree that the current text is confusing. I wonder if we can
> improve
> on the confusion by just saying something like
> 
> Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not
> available
> at this time. The most recent LyX release that has official
> Windows
> binaries is 2.2.3. There are 2 Windows installer variants:
> 
> I will make that change.
> 
> If you think that it is still too confusing, and other developers
> also
> agree that we should hide that text, I can be convinced.

I am fine with that, but probably you should change the text below to

"For Cygwin, however, there is a binary for 2.3.0. It can be downloaded
here: lyx-2.3.0-cygwin.tar.gz."

Jürgen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part