Re: Towards final 2.0 release

You were right Peter. Duplicated. --- Diego Queiroz 2011/4/25 Peter Kümmel > On 25.04.2011 03:22, Diego Queiroz wrote: > >> I've finally found a way to reproduce a SIGSEGV error: >> >> http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7492 >> >> >> IMO, this is a critical error. ;-/ >>

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Il 25/04/2011 09:52, Peter Kümmel ha scritto: On 25.04.2011 03:22, Diego Queiroz wrote: I've finally found a way to reproduce a SIGSEGV error: http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7492 IMO, this is a critical error. ;-/ --- Diego Queiroz I assume this is a du

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On 25.04.2011 03:22, Diego Queiroz wrote: I've finally found a way to reproduce a SIGSEGV error: http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7492 IMO, this is a critical error. ;-/ --- Diego Queiroz I assume this is a duplicate of http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticke

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Diego Queiroz wrote: > I've finally found a way to reproduce a SIGSEGV error: > http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7492 cannot reproduce with trunk (windows, msvc2010) ed.

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

I've finally found a way to reproduce a SIGSEGV error: http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7492 IMO, this is a critical error. ;-/ --- Diego Queiroz 2011/4/21 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes > Le 21/04/11 22:14, Peter Kuemmel a écrit : > > http://www.lyx.org/trac/cha

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Le 21/04/11 22:14, Peter Kuemmel a écrit : http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38473/ (shows disabled code only) I would move this code to somewhere else (lassert.cpp? os_unix.cpp?), debug.cpp is really something else. For the headers, please use #include #include It is great to have this fea

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

> > Recently I added a function which gets the call stack on request: > > http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38334/ > > > > It's not that pretty as a gdb backtrace, > > Did you take a look at ? > > JMarc Thanks for the hint! http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38473/ (shows disabled code only) P

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > but maybe we should also build with symbols in released code and add a crash > report dialog which uploads somewhere the back trace after a simple "OK" > click by the user. > That would be very nice, indeed! Especially for the pre-releases. L

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Le 21/04/11 20:50, Peter Kümmel a écrit : On 21.04.2011 08:14, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: I thought gdb only works for gcc compiled binaries (not e.g. MSVC). Are we using gcc to

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On 21.04.2011 08:14, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Liviu Andronic > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John McCabe-Dansted >> wrote: >>> I thought gdb only works for gcc compiled binaries (not e.g. MSVC). >>> Are we using gcc to compile the Windows binari

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Pavel Sanda wrote: > (might be offline days around easter and announce it beforehand in such a > case) i'll be offline until tuesday. pavel

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Please report anything you think should be different. > > Pavel, are you sure it will be here today ? yes, they are ready. when i'm back home, i'll upload them. pavel

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On 19-4-2011 22:03, Diego Queiroz wrote: > I don't know about others, but the Windows installers are very unstable IMO. > For example, all unofficial releases that I used until now appear to be using > incorrect files (lyx1.6 configuration files). > > Don't we need to get rid of these problems fi

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: >> I thought gdb only works for gcc compiled binaries (not e.g. MSVC). >> Are we using gcc to compile the Windows binaries? >> > I'm not familiar with these details. I would guess

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:45 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > I thought gdb only works for gcc compiled binaries (not e.g. MSVC). > Are we using gcc to compile the Windows binaries? > I'm not familiar with these details. I would guess LyX is built with MSVC. How would one get to debug these binari

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:01 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: >> Do you have a backtrace? (If not you could perhaps make a habit of >> running LyX through a debugger so you can backtrace when it crashes.) >> > You would need to install gdb (w

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:01 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > Do you have a backtrace? (If not you could perhaps make a habit of > running LyX through a debugger so you can backtrace when it crashes.) > You would need to install gdb (which is available for Win) and make a habit of starting LyX via

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Diego Queiroz wrote: >> Well that just proves Pavel's point that the bug won't be fixed unless you >> report it! > C'mon, it is not that easy to report a bug. ;\ >> As for the lack of reports for windows - people are generally shy in >> this regard, especially non

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

> Well that just proves Pavel's point that the bug won't be fixed unless you report it! C'mon, it is not that easy to report a bug. ;\ > As for the lack of reports for windows - people are generally shy in > this regard, especially non-programmers. You're absolutely right. While using LyX I even

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:29:30 +0200 Pavel Sanda wrote: > [...] > also the "interesting" bugs are those which starts with "using > official installer". yes, i know, only rc2 is available now... I've just remembered something. Last time I've tried the official installer (I think it was for

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:20:31 -0300 Diego Queiroz wrote: > Well. > Let's not start the endless discussion of "what's the better OS", > right? :-) However, of course there will be volunteers interested in > Windows if you decide to move to Linux. I'm one of them. Just to be clear: even after fu

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

t;To: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org >Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 16:38:09 >Subject: Re: Towards final 2.0 release > > >> i dont see another people to report this. so your problems are not going to >> disappear unless we have a way how to reproduce them or at least have a >> bactrace

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

> i dont see another people to report this. so your problems are not going to > disappear unless we have a way how to reproduce them or at least have a > bactrace. I think you're right. But I also question myself how much people are really using/testing LyX 2.0 in Windows. My guess is that only f

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Diego Queiroz wrote: > But my vote is to wait until LyX is stable in both OS, so we guarantee the > support for both platforms. i dont see another people to report this. so your problems are not going to disappear unless we have a way how to reproduce them or at least have a bactrace. also the "i

Re: Towards 1.6.10 [was: Re: Towards final 2.0 release]

On 04/19/2011 02:53 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: next week (~27-8) i plan to make final 2.0.0 tarballs. OK. LyX 1.6.10 will follow soon after. This means that if you want to get some fix into branch yet, you should act soon. Once 2.0 is tagged, I will try to close the 1.6 br

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

Well. Let's not start the endless discussion of "what's the better OS", right? :-) However, of course there will be volunteers interested in Windows if you decide to move to Linux. I'm one of them. Don't take me wrong about my comment in this thread, and don't feel responsible because there are bu

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:42:49 -0300 Diego Queiroz wrote: > I understand Michal, I was already aware of the discussion. Then you should also understand that unstable/nonexisting installer is not going to delay LyX release at all (please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've concluded fr

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

I understand Michal, I was already aware of the discussion. The problem is that the normal installer (not the alternative one) isn't so stable also. In the present moment, your "alternative nonofficial installer" is the most stable release for Windows IMO. --- Diego Queiroz 2011/4/19 Michal Sk

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:03:14 -0300 Diego Queiroz wrote: > I don't know about others, but the Windows installers are very > unstable IMO. For example, all unofficial releases that I used until > now appear to be using incorrect files (lyx1.6 configuration files). The problem is described in th

Re: Towards final 2.0 release

I don't know about others, but the Windows installers are very unstable IMO. For example, all unofficial releases that I used until now appear to be using incorrect files (lyx1.6 configuration files). Don't we need to get rid of these problems first? Cheers, --- Diego Queiroz 2011/4/18 Pavel

Towards 1.6.10 [was: Re: Towards final 2.0 release]

Pavel Sanda wrote: > next week (~27-8) i plan to make final 2.0.0 tarballs. OK. LyX 1.6.10 will follow soon after. This means that if you want to get some fix into branch yet, you should act soon. Once 2.0 is tagged, I will try to close the 1.6 branch once and for all. Richard, I suppose the ly

Towards final 2.0 release

hi all, next week (~27-8) i plan to make final 2.0.0 tarballs. please from now on no experiments with trunk (including whitespace fixing or removing unneeded variables ;) . every commit (=fixing some real bug) should have ok from another developer. exception are translations and documentation up