On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 12:32:38PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, dem 21.04.2024 um 12:20 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> > Actually I'm not sure I understand the lifecycle of chkconfig.ltx.
> > After renaming to chkconfig.ltx.bak some fresh chkconfig.ltx will be
Am Sonntag, dem 21.04.2024 um 11:59 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Will do if you are fine with my proposal.
Yes, sure.
--
Jürgen
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
Am Sonntag, dem 21.04.2024 um 12:20 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Actually I'm not sure I understand the lifecycle of chkconfig.ltx.
> After renaming to chkconfig.ltx.bak some fresh chkconfig.ltx will be
> created there or only chkconfig.ltx.bak remains?
The latter. Let me explain:
; > > configuration script detected!"),
> > > + _("We have detected an outdated script
> > > 'chkconfig.ltx' in your user directory.\n"
> > > + "The script has been rename
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 11:48:22AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, dem 21.04.2024 um 11:42 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> > Not sure if it's woth the flurry of new commits, but:
> > 1) "We" sounds somewhat unusual in our messages
> > 2) "If you did not copy the script there" was somewh
Am Sonntag, dem 21.04.2024 um 11:42 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Not sure if it's woth the flurry of new commits, but:
> 1) "We" sounds somewhat unusual in our messages
> 2) "If you did not copy the script there" was somewhat confusing on
> first reading as it does not relate to the previous senten
_("We have detected an outdated script
> > 'chkconfig.ltx' in your user directory.\n"
> > + "The script has been renamed to
> > 'chkconfig.ltx.bak'.\n"
> > +
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:57:49PM +, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> + frontend::Alert::warning(_("Outdated
> configuration script detected!"),
> + _("We have detected an outdated script
> 'chkco
Op 18-10-2015 om 15:21 schreef Uwe Stöhr:
commit c246ca2d43663dbce3d3052b2ae9459b45bf4acc
Author: Uwe Stöhr
Date: Sun Oct 18 15:21:50 2015 +0200
chkconfig.ltx: add packages supported by LyX
- also update Win installer package list (trimspaces is required by tcolorbox but not
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> I know this, but why are you against checking for the wasy fonts.
I am not against checking the font. The current version of the check is
fine, but I replied to the commit message of a different one.
Georg
Am 28.01.2013 07:47, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
Hm. But you know there is no class called "koma-script".
Sorry. When will I even learn that MiKTeX works different? (I can test for a package named
"koma-script" and also for scrbook.cls).
Yesterday I fiddled a lot with the miktex package inst
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:47:22AM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > +\TestPackage{koma-script}
>
> Hm. But you know there is no class called "koma-script".
Really? But MikTeX installs that package when adding this line.
--
Enrico
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> +\TestPackage{koma-script}
Hm. But you know there is no class called "koma-script".
Jürgen
Am 23.01.2013 22:56, schrieb Georg Baum:
chkconfig.ltx: check for wasy
In unicodesymbols we use the wasy fonts intensively. So we also need
to check for them. (wasysym is not the font package itself, only a
package to support it: "LaTeX support file to use the WASY-2
Am 25.01.2013 10:43, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
Checking for fonts is not that difficult in latex. See the example from
configure.py for ecrm (which
can be removed now IMO):
I see, but this requires more changes in branch. I am not an expert in these things and don't want
to open Pandora'
Am 25.01.2013 13:52, schrieb Guenter Milde:
What is the reason for testing cbgreek in the first place?
If you install LyX for the first time on a PC and compile your first Greek document, MiKTeX comes up
asking you to install cbgreek. In case you don't have an Internet connection, this packa
Am 23.01.2013 22:04, schrieb Julien Rioux:
-\TestPackage{cbgreek}% for Greek
+\TestPackage[glic1000]{cbgreek}% for Greek
.tfm missing?
No, the extension must not be specified, see also the other occurrences of
\TestFont in chkconfig.ltx.
regards Uwe
On 2013-01-25, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 23/01/2013 23:24, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
>> commit 873d5ebc27d7c0f8949d1f6abef1d396b67498a2
>> Author: Uwe Stöhr
>> Date: Wed Jan 23 23:24:53 2013 +0100
>> chkconfig.ltx: remove check for cbgreek
>> -
Le 23/01/2013 23:24, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
The branch, 2.0.x, has been updated.
- Log -
commit 873d5ebc27d7c0f8949d1f6abef1d396b67498a2
Author: Uwe Stöhr
Date: Wed Jan 23 23:24:53 2013 +0100
chkconfig.ltx: remove check
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> The branch, master, has been updated.
>
> - Log -
>
> commit 3cba8fa9be09cefdbb145415fe6132383d27aa88
> Author: Uwe Stöhr
> Date: Wed Jan 23 22:01:06 2013 +0100
>
> ch
3 21:54:48 2013 +0100
>
> chkconfig.ltx: correct check for cbgreek
>
> fixes #8522
>
> diff --git a/lib/chkconfig.ltx b/lib/chkconfig.ltx
> index 76ece71..3c170c8 100644
> --- a/lib/chkconfig.ltx
> +++ b/lib/chkconfig.ltx
> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@
> \TestPackage{ae
On 01/02/2013 06:39 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 02.01.2013 15:45, schrieb Richard Heck:
Done. OK for branch too Richard?
Yes, OK.
Is branch frozen? If so, when will it be open again?
No, it is open and was never closed.
Btw. can you please commit the changes you made to the po-files
(remerg
Am 02.01.2013 15:45, schrieb Richard Heck:
Done. OK for branch too Richard?
Yes, OK.
Is branch frozen? If so, when will it be open again?
Btw. can you please commit the changes you made to the po-files (remerge results)? I used the
versions in the 2.0.5.1 zip package but it would be good to
On 01/01/2013 11:31 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 01.01.2013 10:20, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
- Jürgen, I noticed that your doc file linguistics.lyx needs the
package
etoolbox. Can I put it on the list of packages needed by doc files?
Sure.
Done. OK for branch too Richard?
Am 01.01.2013 10:20, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
- Jürgen, I noticed that your doc file linguistics.lyx needs the package
etoolbox. Can I put it on the list of packages needed by doc files?
Sure.
Done. OK for branch too Richard?
regards Uwe
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> - Jürgen, I noticed that your doc file linguistics.lyx needs the package
> etoolbox. Can I put it on the list of packages needed by doc files?
Sure.
Jürgen
etoolbox. Can I put it on
the list of packages needed by doc files?
happy new year!
Uwe
diff --git "a/C:\\DOCUME~1\\usti\\LOCALS~1\\Temp\\chk474.tmp\\chkconfig-60bca5b-left.ltx" "b/D:\\LyXGit\\2.0.x\\lib\\chkconfig.ltx"
index d64e9fc..75fefce 100644
--- "a/C:\\DOCUME~1\\ust
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> The attached minor patches fix a couple of typos that cause configure.py to
> give an unexplained (this could be improved) 1 exit status.
>
> These typos were introduced into trunk here:
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/503bd6cf7193b3aaf806dfeb896248116a06d8b2/lyxgit
>
see this, if you have the current trunk installed, run reconfigure. Shouldn't
this same error be displayed when configure.py is run the first time?
Scott
diff --git a/lib/chkconfig.ltx b/lib/chkconfig.ltx
index d4ae658..dbd1bd5 100644
--- a/lib/chkconfig.ltx
+++ b/lib/chkconfig.ltx
@@ -368,8 +
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> The attached patch backports r34203 and r34300. OK?
Go on.
Jürgen
The attached patch backports r34203 and r34300. OK?
regards Uwe
Index: chkconfig.ltx
===
--- chkconfig.ltx (revision 34441)
+++ chkconfig.ltx (working copy)
@@ -230,6 +230,7 @@
\TestPackage{accents}
\TestPackage{algorithm
uwestoehr wrote:
> Jürgen, also OK for branch?
Yes, OK.
Jürgen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Should also be done in branch, Jürgen?
OK.
Jürgen
Could you please also add an entry to LaTeXConfig.lyx?
thanks and regards
Uwe
Stefan Schimanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How can I check for a specific version of xargs here? We need at least
> 1.09.
We do not do it right now because configure.py does not load the files
(we do not know what kind of weird errors it could do).
One solution is to do like jurabib
:
lyx-devel/trunk/lib/chkconfig.ltx
Modified: lyx-devel/trunk/lib/chkconfig.ltx
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/file/lyx-devel/trunk/lib/chkconfig.ltx?rev=23620
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
--- lyx-devel/trunk/lib/chkconfig.ltx
this comment? LaTeXConfig.lyx.in has been renamed to
LaTeXConfig.lyx but the rest is still valid.
This is in chkconfig.ltx. This much may be correct, but other stuff
there is surely wrong, e.g.:
%%% If you want to add the new package , all you need most of
%%% the times is a two-steps work:
%%
> %%% For document classes, things are even simpler, since you do not
> %%% need to edit this file. Just put your layout file in some place
> %%% where LyX can find it and add if you wish a description in
> %%% LaTeXConfig.lyx.in, as described above.
From where is this comment? LaTeXConfig.lyx.in
I'm guessing this needs updating?
%%% If you want to add new packages/documentclasses to be recognized,
%%% read the explanation that follow and jump to the section 'Actual
%%% inspection code' below. You do not need to understand the ugly
%%% LaTeX code below to help improvin
39 matches
Mail list logo
