RE: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Bernt Lie]

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> fine.



I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks LaTeX 
classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his own 
set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).

--

"Why are people still using Windows?"



Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows users.

--

Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.

* Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must be 
updated for some technical reason.

* What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX console 
says[cid:image001.jpg@01D3EAA7.E33844B0]



  *   Is there a newer MikTeX version?
  *   Is the problem that a (possible) newer version will not be backwards 
compatible?
  *   If I can update MikTeX to the latest version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and 
face no problem of backwards compatibility, then I don’t see any problem.



BL









-Original Message-
From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org  On Behalf Of Steve Litt
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries



ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.



On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.



SteveT





On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700

John White mailto:j...@whitelawchartered.com>> 
wrote:



> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates

> just fine.

>

> John White

>

> On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:

> > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:

> > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single

> > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not

> > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function

> > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as

> > > recently as some specific date?

> >

> > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development

> > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,

> > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The

> > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such

> > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software

> > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So

> > that has left us in a bad position.

> >

> > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.

> > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so

> > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome

> > help from someone who does use Windows.

> >

> > Riki

>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Anders Ekberg]

1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users are 
running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to explain the 
problem

2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx) *without 
asking the user*

All the best!
Anders

> 13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie :
> 
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> > fine.
>  
> I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
> who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks 
> LaTeX classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his 
> own set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
> --
> "Why are people still using Windows?"
>  
> Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
> that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
> our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
> developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
> use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
> public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
> would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows 
> users.
> --
> Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
> can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.
> * Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must 
> be updated for some technical reason.
> * What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX 
> console says
>  
> Is there a newer MikTeX version?
> Is the problem that a (possible) newer version will not be backwards 
> compatible?
> If I can update MikTeX to the latest version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face 
> no problem of backwards compatibility, then I don’t see any problem.
>  
> BL
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org  On Behalf Of Steve 
> Litt
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
>  
> ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.
>  
> On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.
>  
> SteveT
>  
>  
> On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
> John White  wrote:
>  
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
> > just fine.
> >
> > John White
> >
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote: 
> > > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not
> > > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
> > > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
> > > > recently as some specific date?
> > >
> > > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,
> > > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The
> > > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such
> > > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software
> > > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So
> > > that has left us in a bad position.
> > >
> > > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> > > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so
> > > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome
> > > help from someone who does use Windows.
> > >
> > > Riki
> >
>  

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Bernt Lie]

1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that developers can 
not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For various reasons, I use 
Windows myself. And I have full respect for others making different choices. I 
don't think the LyX list should be used for negative description of OSes not 
used by oneself.

2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
* Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
* Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, proceed 
and install LyX 2.3.0
* If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".

Maybe a solution?
B

Get Outlook for Android



From: Anders Ekberg
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 13:33
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
To: Bernt Lie
Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org


1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users are 
running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to explain the 
problem

2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx) *without 
asking the user*

All the best!
Anders

13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie 
mailto:bernt@usn.no>>:

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> fine.

I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks LaTeX 
classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his own 
set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
--
"Why are people still using Windows?"

Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows users.
--
Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.
* Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must be 
updated for some technical reason.
* What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX console 
says

Is there a newer MikTeX version? Is the problem that a (possible) newer version 
will not be backwards compatible?If I can update MikTeX to the latest version, 
install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face no problem of backwards compatibility, then I 
don’t see any problem.

BL




-Original Message-
From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org 
mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>> On Behalf Of Steve 
Litt
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.

On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.

SteveT


On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
John White mailto:j...@whitelawchartered.com>> 
wrote:

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
> just fine.
>
> John White
>
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
> > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not
> > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
> > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
> > > recently as some specific date?
> >
> > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,
> > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The
> > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such
> > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software
> > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So
> > that has left us in a bad position.
> >
> > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so
> > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome
> > help from someone who does use Windows.
> >
> > Riki
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Anders Ekberg]

1 agree, but censor a list is not really good either (most posts, such as this 
one) are not by developers

2 see the discussion on the developers list, suggestions like this have been 
thoroughly discussed

> 13 maj 2018 kl. 14:16 skrev Bernt Lie :
> 
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that developers can 
> not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For various reasons, I use 
> Windows myself. And I have full respect for others making different choices. 
> I don't think the LyX list should be used for negative description of OSes 
> not used by oneself.
> 
> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
> latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, 
> proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
> user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".
> 
> Maybe a solution?
> B
> 
> Get Outlook for Android
> 
> 
> 
> From: Anders Ekberg
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 13:33
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
> To: Bernt Lie
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> 
> 
> 1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users are 
> running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to explain 
> the problem
> 
> 2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx) *without 
> asking the user*
> 
> All the best!
> Anders
> 
> 13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie :
> 
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> > fine.
>  
> I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
> who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks 
> LaTeX classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his 
> own set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
> --
> "Why are people still using Windows?"
>  
> Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
> that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
> our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
> developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
> use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
> public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
> would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows 
> users.
> --
> Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
> can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.
> * Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must 
> be updated for some technical reason.
> * What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX 
> console says
>  
> Is there a newer MikTeX version? Is the problem that a (possible) newer 
> version will not be backwards compatible?If I can update MikTeX to the latest 
> version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face no problem of backwards 
> compatibility, then I don’t see any problem. 
>  
> BL
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org  On Behalf Of Steve 
> Litt
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
>  
> ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.
>  
> On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.
>  
> SteveT
>  
>  
> On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
> John White  wrote:
>  
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates 
> > just fine.
> > 
> > John White
> > 
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:  
> > > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single 
> > > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not 
> > > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function 
> > > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as 
> > > > recently as some specific date?
> > > 
> > > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX, 
> > > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The 
> > > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such 
> > > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software 
> > > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So 
> > > that has left us in a bad position.
> > > 
> > > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> > > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so 
> > > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certa

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 13/05/2018 à 14:16, Bernt Lie a écrit :
1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that 
developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For 
various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for 
others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be 
used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.


We are glad to have users on Windows, macOS and Linux/*BSD (maybe haiku 
too but I am not so sure). The fact that most of us are linux users 
makes things more complicated that it should be. I have actually no idea 
of what is the repartition of users across OSes.


So you will not see the developers disparage other OSes than the one 
they choose, except in case of intense frustration :)


JMarc

LyX 2.3.0 on Mac: Exporting to LaTeX (pdflatex) messes up paths to tables and figures

[Uwe Thuemmel]

Dear fellow users,

I have figures (as pdf) and tables (as LyX child documents) in subdirectories 
./figures and ./tables. When I export from LyX 2.3.0 on Mac to LaTeX 
(pdflatex), the relative paths to these figures and tables are messed up. In 
particular, they are replaced by absolute paths where ‘/‘ is replaced by ‘_'. 
For example, a relative path /figures/figure1.pdf is replaced by something like 
1_users_user_project_project1_figures_figure1.pdf. In addition, LyX places pdf 
files with these names as 1_users_user_project_project1_figures_figure1.pdf in 
the same directory as the main LyX file (but does not do so for the tables 
contained in LyX child documents). As a result, the TeX file does not compile 
correctly and I have to edit it by hand to adjust the paths. I’d much rather 
see LyX keep the relative paths when exporting to LaTeX. Sometimes this 
actually works - but I don’t know why. Can anyone help?

Thank you,
Uwe

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:16:33PM +, Bernt Lie wrote:
> For various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for others 
> making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be used for 
> negative description of OSes not used by oneself.

+1.

> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
> latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, 
> proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
> user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".
> 
> Maybe a solution?

Thanks for the idea. This has been proposed:

  
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20180303171721.hv4rgrj6k3a3itv7%40steph

Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the root disagreement.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Bernt Lie]

Since I'm currently a Windows user: I do curse it every now and then. I used 
VMS and Solaris long time ago + MacOS a little at the same time; they also had 
their things.

B

Get Outlook for Android


From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org  on behalf of Jean-Marc 
Lasgouttes 
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 4:58:52 PM
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

Le 13/05/2018 à 14:16, Bernt Lie a écrit :
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that
> developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For
> various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for
> others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be
> used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.

We are glad to have users on Windows, macOS and Linux/*BSD (maybe haiku
too but I am not so sure). The fact that most of us are linux users
makes things more complicated that it should be. I have actually no idea
of what is the repartition of users across OSes.

So you will not see the developers disparage other OSes than the one
they choose, except in case of intense frustration :)

JMarc

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/13/2018 08:16 AM, Bernt Lie wrote:
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that
> developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For
> various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for
> others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be
> used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.
>
> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading
> to the latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes,
> proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on
> how the user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded
> MikTeX".
>
> Maybe a solution?

The rest of the development team has asked for even less: Just a message
explaining that MikTeX will be upgraded, with an option to cancel if one
wants to do it manually or get more info. It's fine with us if the
upgrade be done as part of the install, as long as the user is told.

Riki


>
>
> From: Anders Ekberg
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 13:33
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
> To: Bernt Lie
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
>
>
> 1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users
> are running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to
> explain the problem
>
> 2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx)
> *without asking the user*
>
> All the best!
> Anders
>
> 13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie  >:
>
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without
> Gates just fine.
>  
> I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1
> colleague who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own
> system, hacks LaTeX classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he
> manages fine with his own set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative
> tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
> --
> "Why are people still using Windows?"
>  
> Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based
> tools, that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX
> that will sink -- our management thinks that Word is just fine... I
> have no problems with LyX developers preferring another OS (ref:
> statement that none of the developers use Windows). But if people
> associated with developing a software tool goes public with opinions
> like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that would make it
> impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows users.
> --
> Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me
> fine, so I can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely
> clear to me.
> * Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX
> must be updated for some technical reason.
> * What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX
> console says
>  
> Is there a newer MikTeX version? Is the problem that a (possible)
> newer version will not be backwards compatible?If I can update MikTeX
> to the latest version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face no problem of
> backwards compatibility, then I don’t see any problem.
>  
> BL
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org 
> mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>> On Behalf
> Of Steve Litt
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org 
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
>  
> ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.
>  
> On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.
>  
> SteveT
>  
>  
> On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
> John White  > wrote:
>  
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
> > just fine.
> >
> > John White
> >
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote: 
> > > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not
> > > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
> > > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
> > > > recently as some specific date?
> > >
> > > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,
> > > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The
> > > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such
> > > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software
> > > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So
> > > that has left us in a bad position.
> > >
> > > We are working now to try to produce

Re: LyX 2.3.0 on Mac: Exporting to LaTeX (pdflatex) messes up paths to tables and figures

[Joel Kulesza]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Uwe Thuemmel 
wrote:

> Dear fellow users,
>
> I have figures (as pdf) and tables (as LyX child documents) in
> subdirectories ./figures and ./tables. When I export from LyX 2.3.0 on Mac
> to LaTeX (pdflatex), the relative paths to these figures and tables are
> messed up. In particular, they are replaced by absolute paths where ‘/‘ is
> replaced by ‘_'. For example, a relative path /figures/figure1.pdf is
> replaced by something like 1_users_user_project_project1_figures_figure1.pdf.
> In addition, LyX places pdf files with these names as
> 1_users_user_project_project1_figures_figure1.pdf in the same directory
> as the main LyX file (but does not do so for the tables contained in LyX
> child documents). As a result, the TeX file does not compile correctly and
> I have to edit it by hand to adjust the paths. I’d much rather see LyX keep
> the relative paths when exporting to LaTeX. Sometimes this actually works -
> but I don’t know why. Can anyone help?
>
> Thank you,
> Uwe
>

Uwe,

I experienced something that may be similar on Mac.  Are you able to test
also with LyX 2.2.3?  In my case, LyX 2.2.3 would behave how I expect but
not LyX 2.3.0.

Also, are you able to post a MWE 
that has the problem for others to test with?

Thanks,
Joel

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Baris Erkus]

On 13-May-18 3:16 PM, Bernt Lie wrote:
1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that developers can 
not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For various reasons, I use 
Windows myself. And I have full respect for others making different choices. I 
don't think the LyX list should be used for negative description of OSes not 
used by oneself.

2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
* Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
* Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, proceed 
and install LyX 2.3.0
* If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".

Maybe a solution?
B

I have sent an e-mail a while back and told my experience with the current LyX 
approach and how problematic it is if one tries to update Miktex while running 
LyX setup program. I have tried it several times but never worked for me. I 
have recommended the above approach (or smtg similar) as well.

In my opinion, developers should not put their valuable time into what they are 
doing right now; instead they should proceed with the above approach (which 
seems easier to implement) and concentrate on making LyX more compatible with 
MikTeXs current and future releases. (Sorry if what I said does not make sense 
as I am not a programmer.)

BE