Thanks Pavel,
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "clean checkout".
However I tried svn cleanup then svn update after which the ar.po problem seems
to have gone away and the make continued for quite a while but stopped with:
Making all in support
make all-am
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..
On Friday 29 January 2010 19:03:15 Stefano Franchi wrote:
> On 01/29/10, Steve Litt wrote:
> >On Friday 29 January 2010 18:41:57 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >> Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 17:55 -0500 schrieb Steve Litt:
> >> > Hi Peter,
> >> >
> >> > As a LyX user who often parses LyX native code in doc
Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
Hi,
start LyX, C-n, C-w ==> assertion (LyXFunc.cpp:537).
Another way: start LyX, choose Tools->Preferences, same assertion.
lassert.cpp(21): ASSERTION bv VIOLATED IN LyXFunc.cpp:537
T.
Hi,
start LyX, C-n, C-w ==> assertion (LyXFunc.cpp:537).
lyx svn, r33266, Linux
(gdb) bt
#0 0x757634b5 in *__GI_raise (sig=) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
#1 0x75766f50 in *__GI_abort () at abort.c:92
#2 0x005b65c8 in lyx::lyx_exit (exit_code=3786) a
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:41:52PM -0500, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
> > Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
> > Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
>
> XML is everywhere. That simple.
A lot of stuff that is "everywhere" is not a good id
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
> Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
XML is everywhere. That simple.
regards
john
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:44:03PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> When enabling the merged build (using cmake)
> which essentially is a build of each lib as
> one file, I get often compiler errors which
> are mostly due to multiple defined symbols.
>
> But now it looks very strange to me in
> soc
On 01/29/10, Steve Litt wrote:
>On Friday 29 January 2010 18:41:57 Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 17:55 -0500 schrieb Steve Litt:
>> > Hi Peter,
>> >
>> > As a LyX user who often parses LyX native code in documents,
>> > programmatically writes LyX native code, and uses Vim to
On Friday 29 January 2010 18:41:57 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 17:55 -0500 schrieb Steve Litt:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > As a LyX user who often parses LyX native code in documents,
> > programmatically writes LyX native code, and uses Vim to change LyX
> > native code, I have the
Am Samstag, den 30.01.2010, 00:30 +0100 schrieb Peter Kümmel:
> just google for these to words. Lua and
> JavaScript are very similar.
First Google hit (here) is
"JSON: The Fat-Free Alternative to XML":
http://www.json.org/xml.html
Peter
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 17:55 -0500 schrieb Steve Litt:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> As a LyX user who often parses LyX native code in documents, programmatically
> writes LyX native code, and uses Vim to change LyX native code, I have the
> same reservations about lua as I do with XML -- it might mak
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 17:50 -0500 schrieb rgheck:
> On 01/29/2010 05:18 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
> > Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
> >
> > The XML hype is over, we don't use Java, LyX
> > doesn't run on a Application-Server, and we
> > live now i
On 01/29/2010 05:18 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
The XML hype is over, we don't use Java, LyX
doesn't run on a Application-Server, and we
live now in a App/web-app world where Json
is more common than XML.
And living in the La
On Friday 29 January 2010 17:18:02 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
> Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
>
> The XML hype is over, we don't use Java, LyX
> doesn't run on a Application-Server, and we
> live now in a App/web-app world where Json
> is more common than XML
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 22:55 +0100 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:>
> >
> What revolution do you expect for 2.0 then ? (or are we back at the
> XML-thing now ?)
Read the "Table of contents" at
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX20
most looks like "bug/missing-feature" fixing. This is maybe
Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
The XML hype is over, we don't use Java, LyX
doesn't run on a Application-Server, and we
live now in a App/web-app world where Json
is more common than XML.
And living in the Latex world this means we should
not use XML
Peter Kümmel schreef:
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 18:30 + schrieb José Matos:
On Friday 15 January 2010 19:42:30 Pavel Sanda wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Any other opinions suggestions?
- please do some definitive decision about version number now.
i have ask
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 18:30 + schrieb José Matos:
> On Friday 15 January 2010 19:42:30 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > José Matos wrote:
> > > Any other opinions suggestions?
> >
> > - please do some definitive decision about version number now.
> > i have asked about the opinions few days ag
When enabling the merged build (using cmake)
which essentially is a build of each lib as
one file, I get often compiler errors which
are mostly due to multiple defined symbols.
But now it looks very strange to me in
socktools.cpp:
int fd;
...
// bind() gives the local address 'name' for 'fd',
On Friday 15 January 2010 19:42:30 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > Any other opinions suggestions?
>
> - please do some definitive decision about version number now.
> i have asked about the opinions few days ago, whoever has something
> to say got his chance. the result was 2:1
On Monday 25 January 2010 12:44:23 rgheck wrote:
> >
> > Using this idea the first step should probably be to swap the
> > meta-characters, for the current lyx format we have the backslash and
> > for xml we have the three characters you mentioned.
> >
> > This seems a reasonable first step to me
spitz wrote:
> Author: spitz
> Date: Fri Jan 29 15:44:21 2010
> New Revision: 33262
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/33262
>
> Log:
> * fix spelling in comments to please John.
Arghh, I'll revert the unintended Tabular changes immediately!
Jürgen
Pavel Sanda writes:
> my real point here was different though - its adding unnecessary pain for
> people working on docs. the distinction seemed to be clear here - lyx i use
> is normally installed and i'm not allowed to edit help files when using
> help menu, while its editable in svn checkouts.
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> >this looks wrong. readonly status should reflect readonly status of the
> >file itself and when users on mac are allowed to edit it, mac installer
> >should be changed, not this imho.
>
> No, the read-only status indicates whether the user is allowed to chang
"Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW" writes:
>>this looks wrong. readonly status should reflect readonly status of the
>>file itself and when users on mac are allowed to edit it, mac installer
>>should be changed, not this imho.
Proper mac apps don't have an installer :)
>
> No, the read-only status i
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> >it would be actually nice to have setting or some context menu for
> switching this.
> >currently there is (fortunately) still possible to dock it alongside
> too...
> >
>
> Why would you ever want them next to each other ?
because i want to see them simulta
>> Log:
>> Make LFUN_HELP_OPEN open the document in read-only mode.
>>
>> This fixes problems where Mac users can modify the documentation by
>> mistake. Note that it is still possible to open those document by
>> explicit path or to toggle off the read-only status (but this is only
>> useful t
lasgout...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: lasgouttes
> Date: Fri Jan 29 13:01:17 2010
> New Revision: 33260
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/33260
>
> Log:
> Make LFUN_HELP_OPEN open the document in read-only mode.
>
> This fixes problems where Mac users can modify the documentation
> by mistak
>> * GuiView.cpp:
>> - use tabbed dock area for multiple docks (such as "source" and
"messages")
>>by default (requires Qt 4.3).
>
>it would be actually nice to have setting or some context menu for
switching this.
>currently there is (fortunately) still possible to dock it alongside
t
sp...@lyx.org wrote:
> Author: spitz
> Date: Fri Jan 29 09:19:45 2010
> New Revision: 33254
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/33254
>
> Log:
> * GuiView.cpp:
> - use tabbed dock area for multiple docks (such as "source" and
> "messages")
> by default (requires Qt 4.3).
it wo
On 01/29/2010 12:13 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
* why isn't this in a normal dispatch function alongside with other
functions? I do not see the gain.
You mean other than that I hate big thousands lines function?
Then it would be better to ha
"Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW" writes:
>>* why isn't this in Buffer or BufferView? Just because it uses alerts?
>> Did I already day that I do not like this dichotomy? ;)
>>
>
> No, because most of the time it had to reload the buffer. Reloading the
> buffer meant destroying the current one and l
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
>> * why isn't this in a normal dispatch function alongside with other
>>functions? I do not see the gain.
>
> You mean other than that I hate big thousands lines function?
Then it would be better to have it in the VC code itself (with a proper
dispatch and getStatus
On 01/29/2010 11:27 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
* why isn't this in Buffer or BufferView? Just because it uses alerts?
Because it was not possible at the time. This was in the main
lyxfunc::dispatch() AFAIR. Thanks to Vincent's recent Buffer::reload()
work. We can clean that up a bit
Guenter Milde wrote:
> Why are the *.po files under version control if they are generated and
> (once in a while) lead to conflicts?
Only the messages are generated. The translations are edited and need to be
committed to the repo.
Jürgen
>* why isn't this in Buffer or BufferView? Just because it uses alerts?
> Did I already day that I do not like this dichotomy? ;)
>
No, because most of the time it had to reload the buffer. Reloading the
buffer meant destroying the current one and loading the file again.
That's why I moved the
On 2010-01-28, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Sebastian Guttenberg wrote:
>> Thanks a lot. Had to type it quite often, but it's fine now.
> Next time just delete all *.po files and svn up. Those *.po conflicts just
> happen, once in a while.
Why are the *.po files under version control if they are
* why isn't this in Buffer or BufferView? Just because it uses alerts?
Did I already day that I do not like this dichotomy? ;)
* why isn't this in a normal dispatch function alongside with other
functions? I do not see the gain.
* could I have a run down of the meaning of the messages? I thi
Roger Mc Murtrie wrote:
> Any advice will be greatly appreciated,
have you tried clean checkout?
pavel
39 matches
Mail list logo
