On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 07:44:26PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Things that might be wrong in this prerelease:
- faulty installation. This has not been checked in detail.
- errors because of the string change. (e.g. wrong part of
substrings extracted)
It would be
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
| and installed it. When I run it, I get:
|
| [kayvan@satyr ~]$ lyx
| Aborted (core dumped)
I belive this one is fixed in cvs.
Are
"Kayvan A. Sylvan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| |
| | The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
| | and installed it. When I run it, I get:
| |
| | [kayvan@satyr ~]$ lyx
| | Aborted
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 02:31:41PM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
| and installed it. When I run it, I get:
|
| [kayvan@satyr ~]$ lyx
"Kayvan A. Sylvan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 02:31:41PM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
| On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| |
| | The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
| | and installed
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
Without the lyxrc file, it starts up fine.
Investigating further...
IIRC I made a one-line fix for this in lyxrc.C in the old series.
You might like to take a diff and see what's there. In the meantime I'll
try to jog my memory with a few diffs of
Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
| Without the lyxrc file, it starts up fine.
|
| Investigating further...
|
| IIRC I made a one-line fix for this in lyxrc.C in the old series.
| You might like to take a diff and see what's there. In the
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 07:44:26PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Things that might be wrong in this prerelease:
> - faulty installation. This has not been checked in detail.
> - errors because of the string change. (e.g. wrong part of
> substrings extracted)
>
> It
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
> | and installed it. When I run it, I get:
> |
> | [kayvan@satyr ~]$ lyx
> | Aborted (core dumped)
>
> I belive this one is fixed in cvs.
>
"Kayvan A. Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > |
| > | The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
| > | and installed it. When I run it, I get:
| > |
| > | [kayvan@satyr ~]$ lyx
| > |
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 02:31:41PM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > |
> > | The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
> > | and installed it. When I run it, I get:
> > |
> > |
"Kayvan A. Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 02:31:41PM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
| > On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:23:14PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > > |
| > > | The compile and installation was fine. I created an RPM based on the release
| > > | and
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> Without the lyxrc file, it starts up fine.
>
> Investigating further...
IIRC I made a one-line fix for this in lyxrc.C in the old series.
You might like to take a diff and see what's there. In the meantime I'll
try to jog my memory with a few diffs
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
| > Without the lyxrc file, it starts up fine.
| >
| > Investigating further...
|
| IIRC I made a one-line fix for this in lyxrc.C in the old series.
| You might like to take a diff and see what's there. In
"Arnd Hanses" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Although this is a new series due to internal reshuffle, wouldn't it be
| convenient to call it 1.0.5.x ? Because it has become a widespread
| convenience to use odd numbers for unstable development releases. Many
| users will become confused by a stable
On 04-Oct-99 Allan Rae wrote:
On 2 Oct 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We have finally been able to end the 1.0.x series, and has opened up a
new 1.1.x series. We expect all releases in this series to be stable.
We should send an official PR to Linux Weekly News and maybe Freshmeat as
well
"Carl" == Carl Ollivier-Gooch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Carl Let's not forget here the possible (probable?) annoyance to
Carl users of being regularly encouraged to upgrade to a new version.
Carl I know that I won't personally upgrade (on five different
Carl machines, counting my students'
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 05:33:49PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
- 1.x.0 version will not happen very often, so people will be
encouraged to upgrade
- all versions are (supposed to be) stable versions, so adventurous
users can try them out.
Seriously, this scheme will not be
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Although this is a new series due to internal reshuffle, wouldn't it be
| convenient to call it 1.0.5.x ? Because it has become a widespread
| convenience to use odd numbers for unstable development releases. Many
| users will become confused by a
On 04-Oct-99 Allan Rae wrote:
>On 2 Oct 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>
>> We have finally been able to end the 1.0.x series, and has opened up a
>> new 1.1.x series. We expect all releases in this series to be stable.
>
>We should send an official PR to Linux Weekly News and maybe Freshmeat
> "Carl" == Carl Ollivier-Gooch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Carl> Let's not forget here the possible (probable?) annoyance to
Carl> users of being regularly encouraged to upgrade to a new version.
Carl> I know that I won't personally upgrade (on five different
Carl> machines, counting my
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 05:33:49PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> - 1.x.0 version will not happen very often, so people will be
> encouraged to upgrade
>
> - all versions are (supposed to be) stable versions, so adventurous
> users can try them out.
>
> Seriously, this scheme will
On 02 Oct 1999 19:44:26 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
We have finally been able to end the 1.0.x series, and has opened up a
new 1.1.x series. We expect all releases in this series to be stable.
Although this is a new series due to internal reshuffle, wouldn't it be
convenient to call it
On 2 Oct 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We have finally been able to end the 1.0.x series, and has opened up a
new 1.1.x series. We expect all releases in this series to be stable.
We should send an official PR to Linux Weekly News and maybe Freshmeat as
well simply explaining the switch
On 02 Oct 1999 19:44:26 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>
>We have finally been able to end the 1.0.x series, and has opened up a
>new 1.1.x series. We expect all releases in this series to be stable.
Although this is a new series due to internal reshuffle, wouldn't it be
convenient to call
On 2 Oct 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> We have finally been able to end the 1.0.x series, and has opened up a
> new 1.1.x series. We expect all releases in this series to be stable.
We should send an official PR to Linux Weekly News and maybe Freshmeat as
well simply explaining the switch
26 matches
Mail list logo
