Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: >> What about spaces in path names of files? I was quite surprised that >> LyX couldn't handle that on Windows, > > That is not true. LyX can handle them of course. Spaces in paths even exists > in Windows' default installation folders. If you find a case where LyX > fails, please report it as bug. > I will investigate that when I get the chance. Thanks Liviu
Re: Conclusion - New Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 08.07.2012 18:25, schrieb Scott Kostyshak: I have now provided the new installer version "LyX-204-3" here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/ The download link on the sourceforge front page hasn't been changed to 204-3 yet. This usually takes a while until it is available at all mirrors. But it is now, regards Uwe
RE: Conclusion - New Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
From: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org [lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org] on behalf of Uwe Stöhr [uwesto...@web.de] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 11:55 AM >I have now provided the new installer version "LyX-204-3" here: >http://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/ The download link on the sourceforge front page hasn't been changed to 204-3 yet. Scott
Conclusion - New Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 28.06.2012 11:23, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that: - the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of LyX20 as the current official installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this behaviour; We discusses that properly and now name the proposed folder "LyX 2.0". - this means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version each time; > - this also means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version _before_ installing > the new version; > - you forced this upon the user by disallowing to install LyX when a version of LyX is already > installed; These 3 issues were not correct as one can install different LyX versions side by side. No uninstalling was necessary. However, due to the new naming scheme, users will now install over existing ones by default. So they are is fixed too. - this prevents the user from installing a new version even if it does not have rights to uninstall the previous one; Now he can. I also fixed the bug that the same LyX version could first be installed as admin and afterwards again without admin permissions. - you still insist on installing the LyX shortcut in a subfolder in the start menu. Your reply that this was much easier if you want to manually reorder the start menu, but this is totally non-sense; I provided a sscreenshot showing that almost all programs setup its own folder in the start menu. The new LyX installer there now also links our website and Wiki. Having the Wiki linked is helpful and I see that almost all other programs also link their website and help. (Personally, I often use these links when I look for help.) But however, other commented that they find it useful to have folder there. So this might be a matter of taste but is no reason to block the installer. - you fiercely protest against an option to not install all exotic MikTeX packages, but you do think it is ok to prompt a message box to the user forcing him to choose whether to update MikTeX. I explained why prompting to update MiKTeX is important. The main work is not to provide the installer but to help users getting a working installation. I have had many cases where users suffered from bugs that have already been fixed on CTAN. An update will not harm and if you don't like that you can say NO at the prompt. Concerning the automatic package installation I have made clear why this is very, very important and others commenters in this thread had the same experience. Compared to the current installer you will need the same time to install. So there is no advantage nor regression. We cannot do much to improve the situation as we cannot know what packages a user will need and which ones not. But this (on some machines) long package installation is only necessary once. For all further LyX installations you will only have to install a few packages or even no one. So this issue is not different from the current installer so that there is no reason to block the new one. So I think the new installer can now become the official one. This installer provides the same features as the current one but has some new features. More important is that we start to begin providing an installer that is under maintenance. For example the current installer for LyX 2.0.4 on our FTP-serer is not under maintenance for at least half a year so that people are for example are suffering from bugs in ImageMagick fixed last December (http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/8233). I have now provided the new installer version "LyX-204-3" here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/ Richard, can you please put it on ftp.lyx.org Can anybody please tell me to whom I can send the new dependency package? I found the current one at https://sourceforge.net/projects/lyx/files/Win_installers/Dependencies/ but cannot upload it there as I am not registered as developer of this project. Can anybody please add me? thanks and regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 05.07.2012 06:48, schrieb Liviu Andronic: What about spaces in path names of files? I was quite surprised that LyX couldn't handle that on Windows, That is not true. LyX can handle them of course. Spaces in paths even exists in Windows' default installation folders. If you find a case where LyX fails, please report it as bug. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 04.07.2012 00:28, schrieb Richard Heck: >> I'm allergic to spaces in pathnames myself. > > They are not a problem. I was using this for years in the old installer and > also the other progrmas use spaces, see my screenshot. > > So this topic is now solved. > What about spaces in path names of files? I was quite surprised that LyX couldn't handle that on Windows, and this could be a psychological hurdle to Windows users. Liviu
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 04.07.2012 00:28, schrieb Richard Heck: You Windows people should decide what makes sense. As I have shown in my screenshot the other programs use also the scheme "Name major.sub", so "LyX 2.0" would be the same. I'm allergic to spaces in pathnames myself. They are not a problem. I was using this for years in the old installer and also the other progrmas use spaces, see my screenshot. So this topic is now solved. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On 07/03/2012 02:49 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 03.07.2012 11:20, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: Attached is a screen shot of my Start menu. As I have about 120 programs I have to group them not to loose the overview. And yes, other programs also do this: Python, CMake, LibreOffice, Qt... Not all programs but some. I guess that is a matter of tested, but I use "LyX 2.0.4" as proposition because of the side-by side installation issue we discussed. Very good example ! Cmake 2.8 is probably cmake 2.8.8. LibreOffice 3.5 is actually 3.5.4. Python has a minor version number too. Don't you see that it just disprove your point? Convinced. I thought again about yours and also Richard's argument from yesterday. It is only Qt that uses the full version number in the folder name. You both are also right that these users who prefer to install LyX side by side still can do this by using another name. So can we agree to use the name "LyX 2.0" as folder name? You Windows people should decide what makes sense. I'm allergic to spaces in pathnames myself. Richard
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On 4/07/2012 6:28 a.m., Richard Heck wrote: On 07/03/2012 05:17 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 03/07/2012 01:57, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : So how about if we propose LyX20, and then if someone wants to install variou things side-by-side, can't they do that by choosing some other name? Yes, but if he is not patient, he just clicks Next and thus installs in the proposed/default "LyX20" folder and overwrites the existing installation. So this is the case of a user who has a special need, but is not patient enough to check how to satisfy it? Is this our problem? That's my thought, too: In the special case where the person *doesn't* want to over-write the installation, they will need to take special care, and will expect to need to take special care, since every other program installs over the old one, by default, when only minor versions are changing. Richard I was in favour of using a "LyX 2.0.4" folder but this is a valid point. I already change the suggested installation folder (from C:/Program files ... to E:/Program files ...). It would be no hardship to make an additional change from "LyX20" to "LyX 2.0.x". Andrew
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 03.07.2012 11:20, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: Attached is a screen shot of my Start menu. As I have about 120 programs I have to group them not to loose the overview. And yes, other programs also do this: Python, CMake, LibreOffice, Qt... Not all programs but some. I guess that is a matter of tested, but I use "LyX 2.0.4" as proposition because of the side-by side installation issue we discussed. Very good example ! Cmake 2.8 is probably cmake 2.8.8. LibreOffice 3.5 is actually 3.5.4. Python has a minor version number too. Don't you see that it just disprove your point? Convinced. I thought again about yours and also Richard's argument from yesterday. It is only Qt that uses the full version number in the folder name. You both are also right that these users who prefer to install LyX side by side still can do this by using another name. So can we agree to use the name "LyX 2.0" as folder name? regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On 07/03/2012 05:17 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 03/07/2012 01:57, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : So how about if we propose LyX20, and then if someone wants to install various things side-by-side, can't they do that by choosing some other name? Yes, but if he is not patient, he just clicks Next and thus installs in the proposed/default "LyX20" folder and overwrites the existing installation. So this is the case of a user who has a special need, but is not patient enough to check how to satisfy it? Is this our problem? That's my thought, too: In the special case where the person *doesn't* want to over-write the installation, they will need to take special care, and will expect to need to take special care, since every other program installs over the old one, by default, when only minor versions are changing. Richard
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Le 02/07/2012 23:15, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : There is no other software I know where I do this. Besides, there is a difference between "to be able to install side-by-side" and "to install side-by-side by default". Attached is a screen shot of my Start menu. As I have about 120 programs I have to group them not to loose the overview. And yes, other programs also do this: Python, CMake, LibreOffice, Qt... Not all programs but some. I guess that is a matter of tested, but I use "LyX 2.0.4" as proposition because of the side-by side installation issue we discussed. Very good example ! Cmake 2.8 is probably cmake 2.8.8. LibreOffice 3.5 is actually 3.5.4. Python has a minor version number too. Don't you see that it just disprove your point? JMarc
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Le 03/07/2012 01:57, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : So how about if we propose LyX20, and then if someone wants to install various things side-by-side, can't they do that by choosing some other name? Yes, but if he is not patient, he just clicks Next and thus installs in the proposed/default "LyX20" folder and overwrites the existing installation. So this is the case of a user who has a special need, but is not patient enough to check how to satisfy it? Is this our problem? Are there people who want their updates to MS Word to install in a different directory (Program Files\Microsoft\Word 2012.sp3-fix005\)? JMarc
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 02.07.2012 23:15, schrieb Uwe Stöhr: Well, last time I tried, the lyx file format was no longer connected to LyX after uninstalling an old LyX version after installing the new one. I cannot reproduce this anymore. This was a bug but seems to be fixed. However, before you blame the installer I thought you gave it another try. I have fixed several bugs since my test released. I hoped all issued reported to me. Here is the new version where fixed now some other issues and also one where the file association as not correctly set without admin privileges: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/ Please give it a try and report further bugs you find. thanks and regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 02.07.2012 11:00, schrieb Liviu Andronic: Random thought: When using the standalone installer, not the bundle one, does the same issue exist? Will LyX instruct MiKTeX to install packages, if missing? Yes, because we require new packages from time to time or replace a package support by another package. But in this case MiKTeX is already installed so that only one or 2 packages are installed, with some releases even no package is changed. One could think that in this case the automatic install setting can be skipped, but we cannot know in what state the LaTeX engine is. Maybe it was not updated for a long time or the last time LyX was installed there was no Internet connection. I had such cases so often and therefore always set the automatic installation. This way I can assure that the users will in every case a best as possible featured LyX. And modify it's settings to 'Install on the fly'? If not, then this entire debate is sterile: - The complete installer is clearly geared at inexperienced users, so installs all that LyX needs to function properly. - The standalone installer can be used by expert users to install LyX very quickly, while such users can install MiKTeX separately (prior to installing LyX). Yes, you can use this installer as such. But an average users don't know what kind of package he needs and some users even after years of sage don't know what is going on in the background of LyX/MiKTeX. But they know that they already have a LaTeX engine installed, can therefore use the standard installer and that's it. I mean LyX's aim is to make LaTeX as simple as possible and we try hard to hide the LateX internals from the user. So we cannot expect that the users want to be bothered with the internals at installation time. Thus developers can keep full control of their installation process, and this can be documented on the wiki/download page. I still have the strong opinion that an installer must be designed for average users who does not need to know how LaTeX works. I also think that a developer don't need an installer as he can easily set it up on his own. further. For example I will try to implement full support for TeXLive when the new TeXLive 2012 version is released in July. Maybe then the package installation is much faster and we can switch to TeXLive for new installations. That would be nice, indeed! It would also allow some kind of standardization between Linux and Windows compilation of LyX documents. I hope so. Let's see what the new version brings. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 28.06.2012 14:08, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: Now I read a bit more the miktexdoc. I suspect that using directly the PackageInstaller interface http://docs.miktex.org/2.8/sdk/interfaceIPackageInstaller.html would help being much faster than the clunky configure.py-based solution. It is not. This is the method you are using when using MiKTeX's package manager. It takes the same time to install because it also downloads a package, then extracts it then installs it and so on. The lyx installer should have a list of packages to install and install them by itself. We already have it, this is the list in the chkconfig.ltx file. It does not matter if the installation is invoked by a python script or an NSIS script, it will use the same mechanism and takes long time. But note that this time strongly depends on the Internet connection speed and the speed of your hard disk. On my new Win 7 PC installing MiKTeX is quite fast. On my old Windows XP it takes about 8 minutes. If some of the packages are big, we could even ponder the possibility of making some of them optional (what are the biggest? How useful are they?) This is not an option. We could not know what a particular user wants to do with LyX. If he has to write a scientific article he will need exotic packages, if he is a linguist, he will need TIPA, but TIPA is unuseful for a mathematician who needs AMS extensions etc... > What about packaging the extra packages together with LyX. This was often proposed in the past but this also not an options. The packages are updated quite often, see http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.ctan.announce. We don't have the manpower to keep it up to date. Moreover we would then only be able to support MiKTeX. But what about TeXLive. Some users prefer that engine. It is the right way we are going to call a LaTeX script to chec for packages. Then the engine preferred by the user (or the preinstalled one of a company is used; for example at Universities TeXLive is often preinstalled). Doesn't > miktex allow to create a lyx-extra meta package that we could just put > together with the windows installer? Not that I know. What about a custom package repository, like described here: http://docs.miktex.org/packaging/ That would need the same manpower: check every day the CTAN package updates, package them and upload. But this is already done by MiKTeX and TeXLive. I don't think it is worth it to do some work that is already done. regards Uwe Would that help? JMarc
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 02.07.2012 22:59, schrieb Richard Heck: The installer proposed "LyX 2.0.4" as name but you can of course chose any other name of your choice. But the average user justs clicks several time OK in an installer and then gets the default/proposed folder. So how about if we propose LyX20, and then if someone wants to install various things side-by-side, can't they do that by choosing some other name? Yes, but if he is not patient, he just clicks Next and thus installs in the proposed/default "LyX20" folder and overwrites the existing installation. Having the full LyX Version number in the name seems to be useful for some users as the other commenters reported and it does not harm. We never had a user complaint about this for years now and when you don't like the name than choose another one. It furthermore enables to install LyX versions side by side by default. So not too bad at all to use this. But anyway, what is the benefit of not using the LyX version number in the name? I'm still don't understand why Vincent thinks this extra feature is a problem. Then we do by default what seems to be what most people would want, That depends on what people wants. When started the installer years ago I once got some reports that I should use the LyX version number in the folder name (this time I only used "LyX" as name), so I did. but still allow as an option what you are suggesting. Right? Yes. The question is still what should be the default. We could start a survey at the users list. I'm curious what the users think/want because the installer is designed for them not for us developers. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 02.07.2012 20:51, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and memory leakage which caused a number of crashes, and I needed to revert to 2.0.1. I like to be able to install the latest version side by side with the previous one until I'm comfortable that it works properly. I've just installed 2.0.4 beside 2.0.3. There is no other software I know where I do this. Besides, there is a difference between "to be able to install side-by-side" and "to install side-by-side by default". Attached is a screen shot of my Start menu. As I have about 120 programs I have to group them not to loose the overview. And yes, other programs also do this: Python, CMake, LibreOffice, Qt... Not all programs but some. I guess that is a matter of tested, but I use "LyX 2.0.4" as proposition because of the side-by side installation issue we discussed. I've had no problems uninstalling afterwards. Just to check, I've uninstalled 2.0.3 *after* installing 2.0.4. No problems (the only thing to remember is *not* to uninstall preferences). I've then reinstalled 2.0.3 beside 2.0.4, again without problems. Well, last time I tried, the lyx file format was no longer connected to LyX after uninstalling an old LyX version after installing the new one. I cannot reproduce this anymore. This was a bug but seems to be fixed. However, before you blame the installer I thought you gave it another try. I have fixed several bugs since my test released. I hoped all issued reported to me. Besides, IIRC the uninstall of preferences is the default. So, there is a substantial percentage of users that lose their preferences etc. I have fixed this now (for the next version). Now it is not enabled by default. I find it convenient to be able to see the version number of a program in the start menu, which the current installation of LyX provides. The above discussion had nothing to do with the version number. Then I misunderstood your point. I also thought aou refer to the version number. As this is not the case, what do you then complain about the name? regards Uwe <>
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On 07/02/2012 04:56 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 02.07.2012 22:47, schrieb Richard Heck: Isn't it possible for users to choose to install to a different location if they wish to do so? I'd have thought the issue here was what we do by default. The installer proposed "LyX 2.0.4" as name but you can of course chose any other name of your choice. But the average user justs clicks several time OK in an installer and then gets the default/proposed folder. So how about if we propose LyX20, and then if someone wants to install various things side-by-side, can't they do that by choosing some other name? Then we do by default what seems to be what most people would want, but still allow as an option what you are suggesting. Right? Richard
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 02.07.2012 22:47, schrieb Richard Heck: If everything's just being installed to LyX20 or whatever, isn't this issue resolved? Yes, but then you cannot have two LyX versions of the same major version side by side. So having LyX 2.0.3 _and_ 2.0.4 is then not possible. Why should LyX 2.0.4 install ImageMagick with different names than LyX 2.0.1 did? It does not. The thing is that we have to store the third-party programs in a folder and to follow the Windows guidelines, we do this in a subfolder of LyX's installation folder. But OK, I confused you because I was not correct in my explanation, see my correction mail. Why isn't that uninstalled with LyX? It is and therefore the case I described in my correction mail can happen. Isn't it possible for users to choose to install to a different location if they wish to do so? I'd have thought the issue here was what we do by default. The installer proposed "LyX 2.0.4" as name but you can of course chose any other name of your choice. But the average user justs clicks several time OK in an installer and then gets the default/proposed folder. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4 - correction
Am 02.07.2012 22:42, schrieb Uwe Stöhr: The point is that you can reinstall 2.0.1 if there is a problem and it will still work with your local files and preferences. Unfortunately not on Windows. The reason is that we deliver stripped-down versions of ImageMagick, Ghostscript and Python with LyX. So assume you have uninstalled LyX 2.0.3 and the installed 2.0.4 or you have installed 2.0.4 over an existing 2.0.3, you can later reinstall an older LyX version, but the stripped-down programs remain in subfolders of LyX 2.0.4. So you then have to adapt the paths in the older LyX version manually and to do this you need some background knowledge. Sorry, this was not correct. What i described only happens if you install e.g. LyX 2.0.4, than later on LyX 2.0.3 as backup. LyX 2.0.3 will then use the programs in the subfolders of LyX 2.0.4. If you now uninstall LyX 2.0.4 and only want to keep 2.0.3 then you will get problems. But OK this case is only hypothetic one. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 02.07.2012 08:30, schrieb Andrew Parsloe: I've had no problems uninstalling afterwards. Just to check, I've uninstalled 2.0.3 *after* installing 2.0.4. No problems (the only thing to remember is *not* to uninstall preferences). I've then reinstalled 2.0.3 beside 2.0.4, again without problems. Thanks for testing and good to hear that it works for you. I downloaded not from SourceForge itself, which is a dead loss as far as someone on dial-up (like me) is concerned, since the download is almost always cut off anywhere between a few hundred KB or 20 MB, Hmm, works for me here, but I cannot influence how and if the servers are running. But thanks to Sourceforge, there is always a mirror online. but from one of the mirrors listed there, which gives a much more reliable download. I also ensure that I'm *not* connected to the internet when LyX is being installed so that the auto downloading of missing MiKTeX packages can't occur. This results in a prompt recommending downloading missing packages to which I reply "No" (just the once), and installation is then completed without fuss. Yes, but then you don't have a fully functional LyX. Try e.g. to write an Elsevier document, make a longtable, rotate floats etc, etc. You will sooner or later get LaTeX errors that a package is missing. By the way, the Welcome screen of the setup wizard includes the line }Click Next to continue including the left brace, which should be deleted. Thanks for the report, this is now fixed for the next installer version. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On 07/02/2012 04:42 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 02.07.2012 10:23, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and memory leakage which caused a number of crashes, and I needed to revert to 2.0.1. I like to be able to install the latest version side by side with the previous one until I'm comfortable that it works properly. I've just installed 2.0.4 beside 2.0.3. The point is that you can reinstall 2.0.1 if there is a problem and it will still work with your local files and preferences. Unfortunately not on Windows. The reason is that we deliver stripped-down versions of ImageMagick, Ghostscript and Python with LyX. So assume you have uninstalled LyX 2.0.3 and the installed 2.0.4 or you have installed 2.0.4 over an existing 2.0.3, you can later reinstall an older LyX version, but the stripped-down programs remain in subfolders of LyX 2.0.4. So you then have to adapt the paths in the older LyX version manually and to do this you need some background knowledge. If everything's just being installed to LyX20 or whatever, isn't this issue resolved? Why should LyX 2.0.4 install ImageMagick with different names than LyX 2.0.1 did? Why isn't that uninstalled with LyX? I guess my proposal would be not to change the names or paths of what we install during a major cycle. Concerning new bugs in stable releases, this does happen, but very rarely, and we actively try to avoid this. I am not sure this happens often enough to justify a different packaging. I can understand why people prefer this. When I was at the end of my Ph.D. I also did not remove the LyX version I found stable. Regressions in branch are rare but they happened and no matter how less probable they are, if you suffering from one and you are running against a deadline you suffer 100%. Therefore I would like to continue support for side-by-side installation of LyX bugfix releases. Isn't it possible for users to choose to install to a different location if they wish to do so? I'd have thought the issue here was what we do by default. Richard
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 02.07.2012 10:23, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and memory leakage which caused a number of crashes, and I needed to revert to 2.0.1. I like to be able to install the latest version side by side with the previous one until I'm comfortable that it works properly. I've just installed 2.0.4 beside 2.0.3. The point is that you can reinstall 2.0.1 if there is a problem and it will still work with your local files and preferences. Unfortunately not on Windows. The reason is that we deliver stripped-down versions of ImageMagick, Ghostscript and Python with LyX. So assume you have uninstalled LyX 2.0.3 and the installed 2.0.4 or you have installed 2.0.4 over an existing 2.0.3, you can later reinstall an older LyX version, but the stripped-down programs remain in subfolders of LyX 2.0.4. So you then have to adapt the paths in the older LyX version manually and to do this you need some background knowledge. Concerning new bugs in stable releases, this does happen, but very rarely, and we actively try to avoid this. I am not sure this happens often enough to justify a different packaging. I can understand why people prefer this. When I was at the end of my Ph.D. I also did not remove the LyX version I found stable. Regressions in branch are rare but they happened and no matter how less probable they are, if you suffering from one and you are running against a deadline you suffer 100%. Therefore I would like to continue support for side-by-side installation of LyX bugfix releases. But OK, if you are voting to drop support for this, I will do so. We then also don't need to rename the older to "LyX 2.0.4" but can keep the name "LyX20". However, I vote for no because of the reason stated above, what do others think? regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Even if we add an option "Surpass the LaTeX package installation" what do you expect a new user who has never worked with LaTeX nor know what LaTeX is will do? "Surpass"? A nice combination of "bypass" and "suppress". Yeah.. cool huh. The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that: - the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of LyX20 as the current official installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this behaviour; There is also no reason not to change the name of the folder. I already also explained that we can easily change the name to somewhat else but need the info about the bugfix release. If is perfectly valid to install LyX 2.0.4 and leave 2.0.3 as backup and some users do this (e.g. if they write a large document like a thesis). I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and memory leakage which caused a number of crashes, and I needed to revert to 2.0.1. I like to be able to install the latest version side by side with the previous one until I'm comfortable that it works properly. I've just installed 2.0.4 beside 2.0.3. There is no other software I know where I do this. Besides, there is a difference between "to be able to install side-by-side" and "to install side-by-side by default". - this means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version each time; > - this also means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version _before_ installing > the new version; No. If this is necessary for you, you find a bug in the installer. It must be allowed to install LyX 2.0.4 to a system where already LyX 2.0.3 exists. I've had no problems uninstalling afterwards. Just to check, I've uninstalled 2.0.3 *after* installing 2.0.4. No problems (the only thing to remember is *not* to uninstall preferences). I've then reinstalled 2.0.3 beside 2.0.4, again without problems. Well, last time I tried, the lyx file format was no longer connected to LyX after uninstalling an old LyX version after installing the new one. Besides, IIRC the uninstall of preferences is the default. So, there is a substantial percentage of users that lose their preferences etc. - you still insist on installing the LyX shortcut in a subfolder in the start menu. Your reply that this was much easier if you want to manually reorder the start menu, but this is totally non-sense; This is not nonsense. On my Win XP PC I have about 120 programs installed. You would get crazy if you cannot sort them. Only one program (Inkscape) does not store the link in a subfolder. But anyway, why is such a nitpick that important for you? I find it convenient to be able to see the version number of a program in the start menu, which the current installation of LyX provides. The above discussion had nothing to do with the version number. Anyway, there are hardly any other applications showing the full version numbers including the minor and revision version numbers. Andrew Vincent
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Le 02/07/2012 08:30, Andrew Parsloe a écrit : There is also no reason not to change the name of the folder. I already also explained that we can easily change the name to somewhat else but need the info about the bugfix release. If is perfectly valid to install LyX 2.0.4 and leave 2.0.3 as backup and some users do this (e.g. if they write a large document like a thesis). I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and memory leakage which caused a number of crashes, and I needed to revert to 2.0.1. I like to be able to install the latest version side by side with the previous one until I'm comfortable that it works properly. I've just installed 2.0.4 beside 2.0.3. The point is that you can reinstall 2.0.1 if there is a problem and it will still work with your local files and preferences. Therefore parallel install is more often a problem than a feature IMO. The situation is different with a major release of course. Concerning new bugs in stable releases, this does happen, but very rarely, and we actively try to avoid this. I am not sure this happens often enough to justify a different packaging. If you want to be careful, the best is often to wait a few days before installing. JMarc
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
I'm by now an experienced Windows (Vista) user of LyX. Doubtless I'm adding fuel to the flames rather than oil on troubled waters, but ... On 2/07/2012 12:33 p.m., Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 28.06.2012 11:23, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: But then you don't get a full functional LyX. We cannot surpass the package installations, see me last 2 mails. Even if we add an option "Surpass the LaTeX package installation" what do you expect a new user who has never worked with LaTeX nor know what LaTeX is will do? "Surpass"? A nice combination of "bypass" and "suppress". The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that: - the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of LyX20 as the current official installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this behaviour; There is also no reason not to change the name of the folder. I already also explained that we can easily change the name to somewhat else but need the info about the bugfix release. If is perfectly valid to install LyX 2.0.4 and leave 2.0.3 as backup and some users do this (e.g. if they write a large document like a thesis). I find the "LyX 2.0.4" naming useful. For example, when LyX moved from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 it brought problems on my system: "sticky" scrolling, and memory leakage which caused a number of crashes, and I needed to revert to 2.0.1. I like to be able to install the latest version side by side with the previous one until I'm comfortable that it works properly. I've just installed 2.0.4 beside 2.0.3. - this means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version each time; > - this also means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version _before_ installing > the new version; No. If this is necessary for you, you find a bug in the installer. It must be allowed to install LyX 2.0.4 to a system where already LyX 2.0.3 exists. I've had no problems uninstalling afterwards. Just to check, I've uninstalled 2.0.3 *after* installing 2.0.4. No problems (the only thing to remember is *not* to uninstall preferences). I've then reinstalled 2.0.3 beside 2.0.4, again without problems. - you still insist on installing the LyX shortcut in a subfolder in the start menu. Your reply that this was much easier if you want to manually reorder the start menu, but this is totally non-sense; This is not nonsense. On my Win XP PC I have about 120 programs installed. You would get crazy if you cannot sort them. Only one program (Inkscape) does not store the link in a subfolder. But anyway, why is such a nitpick that important for you? I find it convenient to be able to see the version number of a program in the start menu, which the current installation of LyX provides. regards Uwe I downloaded not from SourceForge itself, which is a dead loss as far as someone on dial-up (like me) is concerned, since the download is almost always cut off anywhere between a few hundred KB or 20 MB, but from one of the mirrors listed there, which gives a much more reliable download. I also ensure that I'm *not* connected to the internet when LyX is being installed so that the auto downloading of missing MiKTeX packages can't occur. This results in a prompt recommending downloading missing packages to which I reply "No" (just the once), and installation is then completed without fuss. By the way, the Welcome screen of the setup wizard includes the line }Click Next to continue including the left brace, which should be deleted. Andrew
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 28.06.2012 12:30, schrieb Liviu Andronic: Here's my proposal for a compromise: - Have the installer default to 'Install on the fly', making it by default tailored to inexperienced users - Have an Advanced tab where this can be changed, while each option is clearly explained, and stern and human-understandable warnings are dispensed where appropriate: -- 'Install on the fly': Results in a complete LyX installation. It takes some time depending on your internet connection. Recommended for inexperienced users. -- 'Don't install': Results in an incomplete LyX installation. The installation procedure is very quick, but use this option only if you know what you're doing. Strongly discouraged for inexperienced users. (Or your favourite stern warning.) -- 'Ask before installing': May result in an incomplete LyX installation, depending on user choices. The slowest installation procedure. Not recommended. I think we could skip the latter. If you are an experienced user you know which packages you need. And even if you missed to install a certain package, you can do this later using MiKTeX#s package manager. My feeling is that the implementation above would accommodate both Uwe's and your objections. I'll think about this. A side note: When 'Install on the fly' is used the user will experience UI freezes while MiKTeX downloads and installs packages in the background. When this happens it is difficult to tell whether the installer hanged, the internet connection is down or what else. So would the following two be possible: - Instead of freezing up, the Windows installer should keep track This once worked but there is now a bug in configure.py that the current installed package is no output. So currently you don't see a progress in the package installation but noting. I'll have a look. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 28.06.2012 11:23, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: If I remember your only remaining complain was that I set MiKTeX to install missing packages silently. I several times explained in detail why this is necessary. I accept that you are an expert in many fields but the average user is not. We cannot bother average users with dialogs where he has to made about 50 times a decision. Who is speaking about 50 decisions ? All I asked for was an option to surpass this step. But then you don't get a full functional LyX. We cannot surpass the package installations, see me last 2 mails. Even if we add an option "Surpass the LaTeX package installation" what do you expect a new user who has never worked with LaTeX nor know what LaTeX is will do? I find it more distracting that I get a messagebox forcing me to choose whether I want to update MikTeX or not (and after that updating MikTeX failed). The problem is that the MiKTeX installer is only released each 6 month or so, but as the aim is to get a full functional LyX, the user should be able to benefit from the latest package updates. Especially users who already use LyX normally don't update MiKTeX by themselves and thus suffer from bugs in packages that are already fixed. When had several cases in this regards. Take for example one of the bugs in hyperref or caption that made documents uncompilable. However, in this case it is not important what the users decides. If he choose to update, fine, if not, it doesn't harm in terms of LyX's feature completeness. The installer is the first thing a new user sees and he cannot know anything at this state. I don't get why you will not accept that the average user doesn't know what a package is and that he also don't need to know. (You know that you can any time later rest the settings you prefer.) I did never say I do not accept this, because the current installer has the same behaviour. So what is the point why you don't want to accept it? In my opinion the installer is ready and now also stable to become the official one. So let's do it now. I think it is not ready yet. Can you please be more precise. What exactly is missing? Btw. I have added some new files and would add them t the dependency package. I want upload the new one to our FTP server but don't know who can put it then to the correct location. The dependency package is on sourceforge, not on our FTP. Who runs it, to whom can I sent the updated package? I believe you're writing ImageMagick entries in the registry yourself. Why ? When installing IM, it writes registry values to HKLM. IM needs registry values to determine where to find its modules. Now it is possible to use also HKCU and so it can be used also when not installed with admin privileges. You can repeat over and over again that IM needs registry values, but that doesn't help me. According to the website of ImageMagick: "Portable Win32 static at 16 bits-per-pixel. Just copy to your host and run (no installer, no Windows registry entries)." This clearly tells me you're wrong that IM needs registry values in either HKLM or HKCU. I also read this and tested this several times. It never worked correct for all cases, especially not for delegates likes SVG or PDF images. But as it is now fixed in IM this is no longer an issue. The new installer currently still writes things to the registry, but this is more a safety thing as I don't know if a certain delegate would still fail without them. However, these settings don't harm and if you would have installed IM using its own installer, you would get them too. The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that: - the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of LyX20 as the current official installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this behaviour; There is also no reason not to change the name of the folder. I already also explained that we can easily change the name to somewhat else but need the info about the bugfix release. If is perfectly valid to install LyX 2.0.4 and leave 2.0.3 as backup and some users do this (e.g. if they write a large document like a thesis). So when can change it from "LyX 2.0.4" to "LyX204" if you don't like the dots. "LyX20" is not sufficient. (I also explained this several times.) - this means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version each time; > - this also means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version _before_ installing > the new version; No. If this is necessary for you, you find a bug in the installer. It must be allowed to install LyX 2.0.4 to a system where already LyX 2.0.3 exists. - you forced this upon the user by disallowing to install LyX when a version of LyX is already installed; This was not planned and is not the case on my 2 test PCs. But I will have another look. - this prevents the user from installing a new version even if it does not have right
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 28.06.2012 11:04, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: If such users need to choose (or actually choose) something other than 'Install packages on the fly', LyX is effectively broken for them. I don't get this sentence. I guess he means that then they don't have all packages needed by LyX. Sooner or later they will use a feature that require a certain packages that is not installed in their system. Because of the about 50 pop-ups from MiKTeX many users where I could have a look how they act when installing LyX clicked at some point "No" to not to be bothered. Personally I still find the Windows installation of LyX confusing and complicated, with UI freezes and lots of waiting time. Each time I have to do it for a friend, it's pretty much an ordeal. And that's why I just want an option to surpass this installation of exotic packages that I will never use, but which takes me a 'coffee-break' to install. How will you do that? Form where do you know what the user will need or not. Take for example a researcher who needs to write a scientific paper for a journal published by the IOP. He will then need very special packages and document classes. The aim of an installer is that every user gets a full functional LyX, no matter for what purpose he will use if. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 28.06.2012 00:20, schrieb Liviu Andronic: made about 50 times a decision. The installer is the first thing a new user sees and he cannot know anything at this state. I concur... If such users need to choose (or actually choose) something other than 'Install packages on the fly', LyX is effectively broken for them. Yes, that is the problem. I held about 20 talks about LyX, how to use it, and its benefits. The people then try to test it our and of course they were baffled about all the question of the current installer. Then they called me and I had to explain it again and again. This is not frustrating for me but as a new user you expect not to be bothered with things you cannot know. Moreover when people are able to work with LyX they try out more special features and are then annoyed that they got LaTeX errors about missing packages. Thus I we should by default install all packages LyX needs/supports. Another point is that in a company and also in most of the universities you don't have admin privileges. If you ask your admin to install a program he will do this, but you cannot install things later. If MiKTeX was once installed by your admin you can install additional packages also without admin privileges but if the admin updates MiKTeX later your personal packages might not work anymore. An example: No matter what your profession is you get the task to determine the bonding length of a molecule. You google a bit and find the program Avogadro: http://avogadro.openmolecules.net/wiki/Main_Page You install it and then can work through the tutorial. But what would you do if the installer asks you several times to install plugins like the "GAMESS", "POV-ray" etc.? At installation time you cannot know what these plugins are about and if you will later need them so the safest is to install them all silently and that is what also the new LyX installer does. The installer should be as simple as possible for the average user, not necessarily convenient enough for expert users. Perhaps to accommodate both the option should be placed in an Advanced tab, with a stern warning. This is not necessary because as advanced user you know how to change the settings of MiKTeX at any time to whatever you like. (Btw. my experience is that about 90% of the users (if not more) never had a look at MikTeX settings nor ever installed a package. I had users who wrote their Ph.D. and some scientific papers and still don't know what a package is.) Developers of LyX don't need an installer as they can simply copy the files they compiled to an appropriate place so the installer is not made to please us developers. Personally I still find the Windows installation of LyX confusing and complicated, with UI freezes and lots of waiting time. Each time I have to do it for a friend, it's pretty much an ordeal. (This is less a critic of the Windows installer than a praise of the ease of installation in Linux.) I'm also not happy that MiKTeX's package installation takes that long but it cannot be sped up according to the MiKTeX developer. But as the new installer is now ready, we have a framework to improve it further. For example I will try to implement full support for TeXLive when the new TeXLive 2012 version is released in July. Maybe then the package installation is much faster and we can switch to TeXLive for new installations. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Le 28/06/2012 13:29, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 28/06/2012 12:30, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Correct me if I'm wrong, we all agree that the 3 possible installation procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages: - 'Install on the fly' results in a complete LyX installation where all works. It is appropriate for new and inexperienced users. It might be inappropriate for experienced users. - 'Don't install' results in a broken LyX installation where nothing works. However, the installation procedure is snappy. It is appropriate only for experienced users who know what they're doing. - 'Ask before installing' can result in an incomplete installation, is very slow and provides for a horrible user experience. It is appropriate only for those who know what they're in for and know what they're doing. It is likely inappropriate at all. Now I read a bit more the miktexdoc. I suspect that using directly the PackageInstaller interface http://docs.miktex.org/2.8/sdk/interfaceIPackageInstaller.html would help being much faster than the clunky configure.py-based solution. The lyx installer should have a list of packages to install and install them by itself. If some of the packages are big, we could even ponder the possibility of making some of them optional (what are the biggest? How useful are they?) > What about packaging the extra packages together with LyX. Doesn't > miktex allow to create a lyx-extra meta package that we could just put > together with the windows installer? What about a custom package repository, like described here: http://docs.miktex.org/packaging/ Would that help? JMarc
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Le 28/06/2012 12:30, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Correct me if I'm wrong, we all agree that the 3 possible installation procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages: - 'Install on the fly' results in a complete LyX installation where all works. It is appropriate for new and inexperienced users. It might be inappropriate for experienced users. - 'Don't install' results in a broken LyX installation where nothing works. However, the installation procedure is snappy. It is appropriate only for experienced users who know what they're doing. - 'Ask before installing' can result in an incomplete installation, is very slow and provides for a horrible user experience. It is appropriate only for those who know what they're in for and know what they're doing. It is likely inappropriate at all. What about packaging the extra packages together with LyX. Doesn't miktex allow to create a lyx-extra meta package that we could just put together with the windows installer? JMarc
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Op 28-6-2012 0:20, Liviu Andronic schreef: >> I concur. Even when I manage to convince people that LyX may be >> interesting and they indeed want to install it by themselves (not >> knowing anything LaTeX related), I still prefer to insist strongly >> that I perform the installation myself. If such users need to choose >> (or actually choose) something other than 'Install packages on the >> fly', LyX is effectively broken for them. > > I don't get this sentence. > Should there be an easy-to-change option for how MiKTeX installs packages and should the non-initiated-in-things-LaTeX user change from the default 'Install on the fly' to either 'Don't install' or 'Ask before installing', then she will be getting a disastrous installation experience: - Either no document will compile once LyX is fired up, which would suggest to her that LyX is a broken software. - Or she will have 1001 dialogues popping up asking whether to install packages with funky names, and once she gets tired of hitting 'yes' every 1min or so and starts hitting 'no' to speed up the install (as happened to me once on a friend's computer), the result may well be the same: a broken install. >> The installer should be as >> simple as possible for the average user, not necessarily convenient >> enough for expert users. Perhaps to accommodate both the option should >> be placed in an Advanced tab, with a stern warning. >> >> Personally I still find the Windows installation of LyX confusing and >> complicated, with UI freezes and lots of waiting time. Each time I >> have to do it for a friend, it's pretty much an ordeal. > > And that's why I just want an option to surpass this installation of exotic > packages that I will never use, but which takes me a 'coffee-break' to > install. > Correct me if I'm wrong, we all agree that the 3 possible installation procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages: - 'Install on the fly' results in a complete LyX installation where all works. It is appropriate for new and inexperienced users. It might be inappropriate for experienced users. - 'Don't install' results in a broken LyX installation where nothing works. However, the installation procedure is snappy. It is appropriate only for experienced users who know what they're doing. - 'Ask before installing' can result in an incomplete installation, is very slow and provides for a horrible user experience. It is appropriate only for those who know what they're in for and know what they're doing. It is likely inappropriate at all. Here's my proposal for a compromise: - Have the installer default to 'Install on the fly', making it by default tailored to inexperienced users - Have an Advanced tab where this can be changed, while each option is clearly explained, and stern and human-understandable warnings are dispensed where appropriate: -- 'Install on the fly': Results in a complete LyX installation. It takes some time depending on your internet connection. Recommended for inexperienced users. -- 'Don't install': Results in an incomplete LyX installation. The installation procedure is very quick, but use this option only if you know what you're doing. Strongly discouraged for inexperienced users. (Or your favourite stern warning.) -- 'Ask before installing': May result in an incomplete LyX installation, depending on user choices. The slowest installation procedure. Not recommended. My feeling is that the implementation above would accommodate both Uwe's and your objections. A side note: When 'Install on the fly' is used the user will experience UI freezes while MiKTeX downloads and installs packages in the background. When this happens it is difficult to tell whether the installer hanged, the internet connection is down or what else. So would the following two be possible: - Instead of freezing up, the Windows installer should keep track (if not provide a ETA or progress bar) of what MiKTeX is doing. For example, it could inform the user about the packages that are currently being downloaded and installed in an auto-scrolling interface. Many Windows installers use such interfaces to indicate which files get installed and where. - Instead of freezing up, LyX should, on Windows at least, pop-up a dialogue similar to the above (indicating what MiKTeX is up to) whenever MiKTeX starts installing packages. This should happen (when appropriate) either on Tools > Reconfigure or when compiling a document. Regards Liviu
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Op 27-6-2012 23:51, Uwe Stöhr schreef: Am 27.06.2012 10:21, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: Op 27-6-2012 2:56, Uwe Stöhr schreef: I now finished the new Windows installer. It is the merge of my old one and Joost's. It still doesn't comply to my first demand, so I still won't accept it. I don't understand why I have to say this over and over again. What is your complain about? We once decided to merge the installers and all agreed. I invested a lot of work and also published several test releases. Yes, but you somehow don't seem to listen to the feedback on your test releases. If I remember your only remaining complain was that I set MiKTeX to install missing packages silently. I several times explained in detail why this is necessary. I accept that you are an expert in many fields but the average user is not. We cannot bother average users with dialogs where he has to made about 50 times a decision. Who is speaking about 50 decisions ? All I asked for was an option to surpass this step. I find it more distracting that I get a messagebox forcing me to choose whether I want to update MikTeX or not (and after that updating MikTeX failed). The installer is the first thing a new user sees and he cannot know anything at this state. I don't get why you will not accept that the average user doesn't know what a package is and that he also don't need to know. (You know that you can any time later rest the settings you prefer.) I did never say I do not accept this, because the current installer has the same behaviour. In my opinion the installer is ready and now also stable to become the official one. So let's do it now. I think it is not ready yet. Btw. I have added some new files and would add them t the dependency package. I want upload the new one to our FTP server but don't know who can put it then to the correct location. The dependency package is on sourceforge, not on our FTP. I believe you're writing ImageMagick entries in the registry yourself. Why ? When installing IM, it writes registry values to HKLM. IM needs registry values to determine where to find its modules. Now it is possible to use also HKCU and so it can be used also when not installed with admin privileges. You can repeat over and over again that IM needs registry values, but that doesn't help me. According to the website of ImageMagick: "Portable Win32 static at 16 bits-per-pixel. Just copy to your host and run (no installer, no Windows registry entries)." This clearly tells me you're wrong that IM needs registry values in either HKLM or HKCU. The reason why I don't accept this installer now is that: - the installer installs LyX in a folder called: LyX 2.0.4 instead of LyX20 as the current official installer does. I really don't see a single reason to change this behaviour; - this means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version each time; - this also means that you have to manually uninstall the previous version _before_ installing the new version; - you forced this upon the user by disallowing to install LyX when a version of LyX is already installed; - this prevents the user from installing a new version even if it does not have rights to uninstall the previous one; - this does not work with installations made by the current official installer; - you still insist on installing the LyX shortcut in a subfolder in the start menu. Your reply that this was much easier if you want to manually reorder the start menu, but this is totally non-sense; - you fiercely protest against an option to not install all exotic MikTeX packages, but you do think it is ok to prompt a message box to the user forcing him to choose whether to update MikTeX. This time I didn't investigate further yet. Vincent
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Op 28-6-2012 0:20, Liviu Andronic schreef: I concur. Even when I manage to convince people that LyX may be interesting and they indeed want to install it by themselves (not knowing anything LaTeX related), I still prefer to insist strongly that I perform the installation myself. If such users need to choose (or actually choose) something other than 'Install packages on the fly', LyX is effectively broken for them. I don't get this sentence. The installer should be as simple as possible for the average user, not necessarily convenient enough for expert users. Perhaps to accommodate both the option should be placed in an Advanced tab, with a stern warning. Personally I still find the Windows installation of LyX confusing and complicated, with UI freezes and lots of waiting time. Each time I have to do it for a friend, it's pretty much an ordeal. And that's why I just want an option to surpass this installation of exotic packages that I will never use, but which takes me a 'coffee-break' to install. I don't get why you will not accept that the average user doesn't know what a package is and that he also don't need to know. (You know that you can any time later rest the settings you prefer.) In my opinion the installer is ready and now also stable to become the official one. So let's do it now. I already have released a test version some weeks ago to be able to iron out some remaining issues. The last step was to enable the support for installing LyX without admin privileges. This is now also possible thanks to the new ImageMagick versions. I still don't understand. I can't remember we ever ran the ImageMagick installer itself. We did not and also my old installer never did. If you bundle the "Portable static" version of ImageMagick, there is and has not been any reason to write to the registry for ImageMagick. Until April IM didn't work without registry settings. The IM developers kindly fixed this now. Because of this problem Joost compiled his own version but this is not the way to go. If a program has a bug it should be fixed there and not by creating an own version. Now we can use the official releases and benefit for all bugfixes immediately. Btw. I have added some new files and would add them t the dependency package. I want upload the new one to our FTP server but don't know who can put it then to the correct location. I believe you're writing ImageMagick entries in the registry yourself. Why ? When installing IM, it writes registry values to HKLM. IM needs registry values to determine where to find its modules. Now it is possible to use also HKCU and so it can be used also when not installed with admin privileges. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > If I remember your only remaining complain was that I set MiKTeX to install > missing packages silently. I several times explained in detail why this is > necessary. I accept that you are an expert in many fields but the average > user is not. We cannot bother average users with dialogs where he has to > made about 50 times a decision. The installer is the first thing a new user > sees and he cannot know anything at this state. > I concur. Even when I manage to convince people that LyX may be interesting and they indeed want to install it by themselves (not knowing anything LaTeX related), I still prefer to insist strongly that I perform the installation myself. If such users need to choose (or actually choose) something other than 'Install packages on the fly', LyX is effectively broken for them. The installer should be as simple as possible for the average user, not necessarily convenient enough for expert users. Perhaps to accommodate both the option should be placed in an Advanced tab, with a stern warning. Personally I still find the Windows installation of LyX confusing and complicated, with UI freezes and lots of waiting time. Each time I have to do it for a friend, it's pretty much an ordeal. (This is less a critic of the Windows installer than a praise of the ease of installation in Linux.) Liviu > I don't get why you will not > accept that the average user doesn't know what a package is and that he also > don't need to know. > (You know that you can any time later rest the settings you prefer.) > > In my opinion the installer is ready and now also stable to become the > official one. So let's do it now. > > >>> I already have released a test version some weeks ago to be able to iron >>> out some remaining >>> issues. The last step was to enable the support for installing LyX >>> without admin privileges. This >>> is now also possible thanks to the new ImageMagick versions. >> >> >> I still don't understand. I can't remember we ever ran the ImageMagick >> installer itself. > > > We did not and also my old installer never did. > > >> If you >> bundle the "Portable static" version of ImageMagick, there is and has not >> been any reason to write >> to the registry for ImageMagick. > > > Until April IM didn't work without registry settings. The IM developers > kindly fixed this now. > Because of this problem Joost compiled his own version but this is not the > way to go. If a program has a bug it should be fixed there and not by > creating an own version. Now we can use the official releases and benefit > for all bugfixes immediately. > > Btw. I have added some new files and would add them t the dependency > package. I want upload the new one to our FTP server but don't know who can > put it then to the correct location. > > >> I believe you're writing ImageMagick entries in the registry yourself. Why >> ? > > > When installing IM, it writes registry values to HKLM. IM needs registry > values to determine where to find its modules. Now it is possible to use > also HKCU and so it can be used also when not installed with admin > privileges. > > regards Uwe -- Do you know how to read? http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader Do you know how to write? http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Am 27.06.2012 10:21, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: Op 27-6-2012 2:56, Uwe Stöhr schreef: I now finished the new Windows installer. It is the merge of my old one and Joost's. It still doesn't comply to my first demand, so I still won't accept it. I don't understand why I have to say this over and over again. What is your complain about? We once decided to merge the installers and all agreed. I invested a lot of work and also published several test releases. If I remember your only remaining complain was that I set MiKTeX to install missing packages silently. I several times explained in detail why this is necessary. I accept that you are an expert in many fields but the average user is not. We cannot bother average users with dialogs where he has to made about 50 times a decision. The installer is the first thing a new user sees and he cannot know anything at this state. I don't get why you will not accept that the average user doesn't know what a package is and that he also don't need to know. (You know that you can any time later rest the settings you prefer.) In my opinion the installer is ready and now also stable to become the official one. So let's do it now. I already have released a test version some weeks ago to be able to iron out some remaining issues. The last step was to enable the support for installing LyX without admin privileges. This is now also possible thanks to the new ImageMagick versions. I still don't understand. I can't remember we ever ran the ImageMagick installer itself. We did not and also my old installer never did. If you bundle the "Portable static" version of ImageMagick, there is and has not been any reason to write to the registry for ImageMagick. Until April IM didn't work without registry settings. The IM developers kindly fixed this now. Because of this problem Joost compiled his own version but this is not the way to go. If a program has a bug it should be fixed there and not by creating an own version. Now we can use the official releases and benefit for all bugfixes immediately. Btw. I have added some new files and would add them t the dependency package. I want upload the new one to our FTP server but don't know who can put it then to the correct location. I believe you're writing ImageMagick entries in the registry yourself. Why ? When installing IM, it writes registry values to HKLM. IM needs registry values to determine where to find its modules. Now it is possible to use also HKCU and so it can be used also when not installed with admin privileges. regards Uwe
Re: Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
Op 27-6-2012 2:56, Uwe Stöhr schreef: I now finished the new Windows installer. It is the merge of my old one and Joost's. It still doesn't comply to my first demand, so I still won't accept it. I don't understand why I have to say this over and over again. I already have released a test version some weeks ago to be able to iron out some remaining issues. The last step was to enable the support for installing LyX without admin privileges. This is now also possible thanks to the new ImageMagick versions. I still don't understand. I can't remember we ever ran the ImageMagick installer itself. If you bundle the "Portable static" version of ImageMagick, there is and has not been any reason to write to the registry for ImageMagick. I believe you're writing ImageMagick entries in the registry yourself. Why ? Vincent
Windows installer for LyX 2.0.4
I now finished the new Windows installer. It is the merge of my old one and Joost's. I already have released a test version some weeks ago to be able to iron out some remaining issues. The last step was to enable the support for installing LyX without admin privileges. This is now also possible thanks to the new ImageMagick versions. You find it here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/files/LyXWinInstaller/2.0.4/ We could also put it on our FTP server. I'll announce it this time also on the users list to get some feedback. regards Uwe
