Bo == Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I think that it's a little premature because we still have
a run-time dependence on sh :) See
src/graphics/GraphicsConverter.C, which generates a shell script on
the fly to control the conversion of your_file.eps to your_file.png
(say).
I
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ideally, we'd remove the hard-coding from the compiled source:
$ grep -r 'sh ' src | grep -v ChangeLog | grep -v Makefile
src/lyx_main.C: sh + QuoteName(configure_script);
src/converter.C:sh +
src/lyx_cb.C:
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, I think that it's a little premature because we still have
>> a run-time dependence on sh :) See
>> src/graphics/GraphicsConverter.C, which generates a shell script on
>> the fly to control the conversion of your_file.eps to
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ideally, we'd remove the hard-coding from the compiled source:
>
> $ grep -r '"sh ' src | grep -v ChangeLog | grep -v Makefile
> src/lyx_main.C: "sh " + QuoteName(configure_script);
> src/converter.C:"sh " +
>
Bo Peng wrote:
This is not a bad idea since we only need a small proportion of the
standard python distribution. If we can add a Python interpreter and
convert.exe to lyx/win, we then only need to install tetex separately.
This is reasonable since lyx is considered as a wrapper/GUI for latex.
Asger Alstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Bo Peng wrote:
| This is not a bad idea since we only need a small proportion of the
| standard python distribution. If we can add a Python interpreter and
| convert.exe to lyx/win, we then only need to install tetex separately.
| This is reasonable
Bo Peng wrote:
Dear list,
May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
under windows? Currently, lyx/win depends on tetex, imagemagic,
python, perl and mingw. We can remove mingw and perl soon but it would
be better if we can distribute compiled .py files and remove Python
Bo == Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bo Dear list, May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows
Bo .exe files under windows? Currently, lyx/win depends on tetex,
Bo imagemagic, python, perl and mingw. We can remove mingw and perl
Bo soon but it would be better if we can distribute
However, I think that it's a little premature
because we still have a run-time dependence on sh :)
See src/graphics/GraphicsConverter.C, which generates a shell script on the
fly to control the conversion of your_file.eps to your_file.png (say).
I think that this thing should be recast to
I agree that this would be a very good thing - to me, the priorities are:
1) Ease of installation.
2) Size of distribution.
Only the first part is important to windows users - they have got used
to huge programs. And if we include a minimal Python interpreter in
lyx/win, the actual download
On Monday 26 September 2005 23:11, Bo Peng wrote:
However, I think that it's a little premature
because we still have a run-time dependence on sh :)
See src/graphics/GraphicsConverter.C, which generates a shell script on
the fly to control the conversion of your_file.eps to your_file.png
Bo Peng wrote:
This is not a bad idea since we only need a small proportion of the
standard python distribution. If we can add a Python interpreter and
convert.exe to lyx/win, we then only need to install tetex separately.
This is reasonable since lyx is considered as a wrapper/GUI for latex.
Asger Alstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Bo Peng wrote:
| > This is not a bad idea since we only need a small proportion of the
| > standard python distribution. If we can add a Python interpreter and
| > convert.exe to lyx/win, we then only need to install tetex separately.
| > This is
Bo Peng wrote:
Dear list,
May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
under windows? Currently, lyx/win depends on tetex, imagemagic,
python, perl and mingw. We can remove mingw and perl soon but it would
be better if we can distribute compiled .py files and remove Python
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bo> Dear list, May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows
Bo> .exe files under windows? Currently, lyx/win depends on tetex,
Bo> imagemagic, python, perl and mingw. We can remove mingw and perl
Bo> soon but it would be better if we can
> However, I think that it's a little premature
> because we still have a run-time dependence on sh :)
> See src/graphics/GraphicsConverter.C, which generates a shell script on the
> fly to control the conversion of your_file.eps to your_file.png (say).
>
> I think that this thing should be recast
> I agree that this would be a very good thing - to me, the priorities are:
>
> 1) Ease of installation.
> 2) Size of distribution.
Only the first part is important to windows users - they have got used
to huge programs. And if we include a minimal Python interpreter in
lyx/win, the actual
On Monday 26 September 2005 23:11, Bo Peng wrote:
> > However, I think that it's a little premature
> > because we still have a run-time dependence on sh :)
> > See src/graphics/GraphicsConverter.C, which generates a shell script on
> > the fly to control the conversion of your_file.eps to
Dear list,
May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
under windows? Currently, lyx/win depends on tetex, imagemagic,
python, perl and mingw. We can remove mingw and perl soon but it would
be better if we can distribute compiled .py files and remove Python
from this list
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
under windows?
Because you can't reaaly do that? The various .py-.exe tools
available for windows just fake it. They bundle the byte-compiled
python files and the python
May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
under windows?
Because you can't reaaly do that?
That is too bad. I guess such 'exe'ification is used only to hide the
implementation details and simplify installation by wrapping
everything into an exe file.
It might
Dear list,
May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
under windows? Currently, lyx/win depends on tetex, imagemagic,
python, perl and mingw. We can remove mingw and perl soon but it would
be better if we can distribute compiled .py files and remove Python
from this list
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
> under windows?
Because you can't reaaly do that? The various .py->.exe tools
available for windows just fake it. They bundle the byte-
> > May it be a good idea to compile .py files to windows .exe files
> > under windows?
>
> Because you can't reaaly do that?
That is too bad. I guess such 'exe'ification is used only to hide the
implementation details and simplify installation by wrapping
everythin
24 matches
Mail list logo
