Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Am Montag, den 18.09.2017, 11:41 +0200 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: > > What is not reasonable is that we insist in disabling aspell and > > enchant what hunspell is used. What is the point? (I know, it is > > separate from your effort). > > I do not find this reasonable either. Fixed in master

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

2017-09-18 13:14 GMT+02:00 Kornel Benko : > > CMakers, does -DLYX_EXTERNAL_HUNSPELL=OFF -DLYX_USE_ASPELL=ON > > -DLYX_USE_ENCHANT=ON give you all three spellers as option? > > Yes, I see all three spellers as option. > To be sure I don't use external HUNSPELL: > # ldd

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Am Montag, 18. September 2017 um 12:14:30, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller > 2017-09-18 11:53 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > > > What could make it useful is that you could decide to enforce the use of > > the new C++ API (if we ever get it to work). If the

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Le 18/09/2017 à 12:12, Stephan Witt a écrit : I’m using a self-compiled hunspell with explicit given include path. Please, don’t break this for RC1. I do not think we are going to make big changes like that for rc1. We just want to update the built-in one. JMarc

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

2017-09-18 12:12 GMT+02:00 Stephan Witt : > I’m using a self-compiled hunspell with explicit given include path. > Please, don’t break this for RC1. > I will commit to master only first and ask CMakers to check before I backport. Jürgen > > Stephan

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

2017-09-18 11:53 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > What could make it useful is that you could decide to enforce the use of > the new C++ API (if we ever get it to work). If the system hunspell is not > good enough, one can fall back on the bundled one. > Yes, right. I did

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Am 18.09.2017 um 11:53 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > > Le 18/09/2017 à 11:41, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit : >> I do not find this reasonable either. But it seems that nobody ever used >> internal hunspell with automake anyway (otherwise, we would have known >> earlier that

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Le 18/09/2017 à 11:41, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit : I do not find this reasonable either. But it seems that nobody ever used internal hunspell with automake anyway (otherwise, we would have known earlier that it did not work). What could make it useful is that you could decide to enforce the

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

2017-09-18 11:34 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > What is not reasonable is that we insist in disabling aspell and enchant > what hunspell is used. What is the point? (I know, it is separate from your > effort). > I do not find this reasonable either. But it seems that

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Le 17/09/2017 à 18:28, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit : Are you still trying? I have successfully updated to 1.6.2 here (more or less the same subset, apart from one pair of files that has been dropped from hunspell meanwhile, dictmgr.{cpp,h}). I did not find time to progress on this front. Please

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Am Dienstag, den 12.09.2017, 12:20 +0200 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: > Le 12/09/2017 à 11:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : > > Le 12/09/2017 à 10:59, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit : > > > Hunspell is also outdated. > > > > I'll have a go at it. > > Not so easy after all. What we have is a

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

El 12.09.2017 a las 18:49, Scott Kostyshak escribió: Thanks. Uwe, please go ahead. Done. regards Uwe

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:59:00AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > 2017-09-12 10:15 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > > > Le 11/09/2017 à 23:34, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : > > > >> Concerning libiconv 1.15, there are not yet opinions. > >> > > > > Updating looks like a good idea

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:15:25AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 11/09/2017 à 23:34, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : > > Concerning libiconv 1.15, there are not yet opinions. > > Updating looks like a good idea IMO. Thanks. Uwe, please go ahead. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

2017-09-12 13:09 GMT+02:00 Jürgen Spitzmüller : > 2017-09-12 12:20 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > >> Le 12/09/2017 à 11:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : >> Not so easy after all. What we have is a trimmed down version of 1.3.3, >> but I am not sure of what

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

2017-09-12 12:20 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Le 12/09/2017 à 11:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : > Not so easy after all. What we have is a trimmed down version of 1.3.3, > but I am not sure of what we want to trim down. > Just the relevant READMEs, licenses and src/

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Le 12/09/2017 à 11:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 12/09/2017 à 10:59, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit : Hunspell is also outdated. I'll have a go at it. Not so easy after all. What we have is a trimmed down version of 1.3.3, but I am not sure of what we want to trim down. JMarc

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Le 12/09/2017 à 10:59, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit : Hunspell is also outdated. I'll have a go at it. JMarc

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

2017-09-12 10:15 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Le 11/09/2017 à 23:34, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : > >> Concerning libiconv 1.15, there are not yet opinions. >> > > Updating looks like a good idea IMO. > > We could also consider updating boost to 1.65.1 (we have 1.62 right now). >

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Le 11/09/2017 à 23:34, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : Concerning libiconv 1.15, there are not yet opinions. Updating looks like a good idea IMO. We could also consider updating boost to 1.65.1 (we have 1.62 right now). JMarc

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:34:34PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > El 10.09.2017 a las 01:38, Uwe Stöhr escribió: > > > Just the patch for > > http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10679 > > should go in before. > > Jürgen found now a fix. Nice. > Meanwhile I testes LyX 2.3 a lot the last 2 days. It is

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

El 10.09.2017 a las 01:38, Uwe Stöhr escribió: Just the patch for http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10679 should go in before. Jürgen found now a fix. Meanwhile I testes LyX 2.3 a lot the last 2 days. It is stable for my needs. Concerning libiconv 1.15, there are not yet opinions. Concerning

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 07:54:02AM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 08.09.2017 um 04:30 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > > > Dear all, > > > > I think most would agree that the 2.3.x branch is quite stable, and I'm > > satisfied that 2.3.0beta1 has received a significant amount of

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:38:26AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > El 08.09.2017 a las 04:30, Scott Kostyshak escribió: > > > I think we should start thinking about rc1. > > Fine with me. Just the patch for > http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10679 > should go in before. Then the new 2.3.0 feature of

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

El 08.09.2017 a las 04:30, Scott Kostyshak escribió: I think we should start thinking about rc1. Fine with me. Just the patch for http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10679 should go in before. Then the new 2.3.0 feature of supporting SVG+text files will also work under Windows. regards Uwe

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 08.09.2017 um 04:30 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > > > Dear all, > > > > I think most would agree that the 2.3.x branch is quite stable, and I'm > > satisfied that 2.3.0beta1 has received a significant

Re: Any rc1 blockers?

Am 08.09.2017 um 04:30 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > Dear all, > > I think most would agree that the 2.3.x branch is quite stable, and I'm > satisfied that 2.3.0beta1 has received a significant amount of testing. > I think we should start thinking about rc1. If anyone disagrees