Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines Christian don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled... Christian however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ; Christian lpr somefile.ps on occassion, especially when the color Christian printer only works from a specific Solaris machine. Christian I think my point is that you can't really assume that Christian you'll need a graphical connection... maybe you need to Christian save bandwidth (modem)? This is not what I was saying. Andre wanted to be able to send a version to a version of lyx that is not accessible from a given machine. This would mean that this version of lyx is running somewhere (presumably with a graphic display) but you cannot access it directly. Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian document... but's that's a different topic. We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I think. Christian If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a Christian lock-file in the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this: Christianlrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock - 130.237.57.34:592 Christian which is neat when you're using a networked file system. Christian Then you can click on URL's shown on one machine and have Christian netscape running on another machine show the new page. I Christian guess you don't really need to have Netscape on this Christian machine, but you do need something that can connect to the Christian socket, i.e. 130.237.57.34:592 in this case. AFAIK, this does not use the lock file. See for example http://www.mozilla.org/unix/remote.html The beauty of this system is that the two mozillas do not even need to share a file system. The message is sent to the mozilla _window_ that you have on your screen... Supporting this in lyx would obviously be great. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian document... but's that's a different topic. We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer games where you have several people playing together. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-790 91 37 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr Mechatronics lab, Dept. of Machine Designhttp://www.md.kth.se
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian document... but's that's a different topic. We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. Christian Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document Christian at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer Christian games where you have several people playing together. I fail to see how it could really work... I mean, in a useful way :) JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document Christian at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer Christian games where you have several people playing together. I fail to see how it could really work... I mean, in a useful way :) My colleagues have used something like this in Framemaker, and they said it was better than two persons in front one screen where only person can type. (and also a strange experience :-) I guess I should think a bit about it and come up with some scenario where it seems useful (and better than normal change tracking). Hey... maybe it'll be more fun! Just like multiplayer games are usually more fun :-) The key is probably in the possibility of doing something together - if you're just going to split the work and write different sections, then change tracking should be fine. Hmm.. what about the actual merge process, maybe it'd be useful then... oh, I'll have to think about it. (there are some really interesting things you could do here.. imagine getting to pick up a DELETE Mark II key where you instantly erase everything your opponent... sorry, co-author has written ;-) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-790 91 37 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr Mechatronics lab, Dept. of Machine Designhttp://www.md.kth.se
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines Christian don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled... Christian however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ; Christian lpr somefile.ps on occassion, especially when the color Christian printer only works from a specific Solaris machine. Christian I think my point is that you can't really assume that Christian you'll need a graphical connection... maybe you need to Christian save bandwidth (modem)? This is not what I was saying. Andre wanted to be able to send a version to a version of lyx that is not accessible from a given machine. This would mean that this version of lyx is running somewhere (presumably with a graphic display) but you cannot access it directly. Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian document... but's that's a different topic. We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I think. Christian If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a Christian lock-file in the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this: Christianlrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock - 130.237.57.34:592 Christian which is neat when you're using a networked file system. Christian Then you can click on URL's shown on one machine and have Christian netscape running on another machine show the new page. I Christian guess you don't really need to have Netscape on this Christian machine, but you do need something that can connect to the Christian socket, i.e. 130.237.57.34:592 in this case. AFAIK, this does not use the lock file. See for example http://www.mozilla.org/unix/remote.html The beauty of this system is that the two mozillas do not even need to share a file system. The message is sent to the mozilla _window_ that you have on your screen... Supporting this in lyx would obviously be great. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian document... but's that's a different topic. We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer games where you have several people playing together. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-790 91 37 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr Mechatronics lab, Dept. of Machine Designhttp://www.md.kth.se
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian document... but's that's a different topic. We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. Christian Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document Christian at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer Christian games where you have several people playing together. I fail to see how it could really work... I mean, in a useful way :) JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document Christian at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer Christian games where you have several people playing together. I fail to see how it could really work... I mean, in a useful way :) My colleagues have used something like this in Framemaker, and they said it was better than two persons in front one screen where only person can type. (and also a strange experience :-) I guess I should think a bit about it and come up with some scenario where it seems useful (and better than normal change tracking). Hey... maybe it'll be more fun! Just like multiplayer games are usually more fun :-) The key is probably in the possibility of doing something together - if you're just going to split the work and write different sections, then change tracking should be fine. Hmm.. what about the actual merge process, maybe it'd be useful then... oh, I'll have to think about it. (there are some really interesting things you could do here.. imagine getting to pick up a DELETE Mark II key where you instantly erase everything your opponent... sorry, co-author has written ;-) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-790 91 37 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr Mechatronics lab, Dept. of Machine Designhttp://www.md.kth.se
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Christian> You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines Christian> don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled... Christian> however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ; Christian> lpr somefile.ps on occassion, especially when the color Christian> printer only works from a specific Solaris machine. Christian> I think my point is that you can't really assume that Christian> you'll need a "graphical" connection... maybe you need to Christian> save bandwidth (modem)? This is not what I was saying. Andre wanted to be able to send a version to a version of lyx that is not accessible from a given machine. This would mean that this version of lyx is running somewhere (presumably with a graphic display) but you cannot access it directly. >> Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy >> next door. That would be very nasty of you. Christian> I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian> document... but's that's a different topic. We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Christian> On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I >> think. Christian> If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a Christian> "lock"-file in the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this: Christian>lrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock -> 130.237.57.34:592 Christian> which is neat when you're using a networked file system. Christian> Then you can click on URL's shown on one machine and have Christian> netscape running on another machine show the new page. I Christian> guess you don't really need to have Netscape on this Christian> machine, but you do need something that can connect to the Christian> socket, i.e. 130.237.57.34:592 in this case. AFAIK, this does not use the lock file. See for example http://www.mozilla.org/unix/remote.html The beauty of this system is that the two mozillas do not even need to share a file system. The message is sent to the mozilla _window_ that you have on your screen... Supporting this in lyx would obviously be great. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Christian> I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same > Christian> document... but's that's a different topic. > > We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer games where you have several people playing together. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-790 91 37 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr Mechatronics lab, Dept. of Machine Designhttp://www.md.kth.se
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Christian> On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> > "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Christian> I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same Christian> document... but's that's a different topic. >> We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs. Christian> Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document Christian> at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer Christian> games where you have several people playing together. I fail to see how it could really work... I mean, in a useful way :) JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Christian> Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document > Christian> at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer > Christian> games where you have several people playing together. > > I fail to see how it could really work... I mean, in a useful way :) My colleagues have used something like this in Framemaker, and they said it was better than two persons in front one screen where only person can type. (and also a strange experience :-) I guess I should think a bit about it and come up with some scenario where it seems useful (and better than normal change tracking). Hey... maybe it'll be more fun! Just like multiplayer games are usually more fun :-) The key is probably in the possibility of doing something together - if you're just going to split the work and write different sections, then change tracking should be fine. Hmm.. what about the actual merge process, maybe it'd be useful then... oh, I'll have to think about it. (there are some really interesting things you could do here.. imagine getting to pick up a DELETE Mark II key where you instantly erase everything your opponent... sorry, co-author has written ;-) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-790 91 37 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr Mechatronics lab, Dept. of Machine Designhttp://www.md.kth.se
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Is that a awfully difficult thing to do, or it has some disadvantages? Thanks. Max
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. -- Ronald Florence www.18james.com
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence wrote: Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. No. You just need a send-to-lyx command (written e.g. in perl), and then you can still use shell scripts.
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence Dekel wrote: Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. Dekel No. You just need a send-to-lyx command (written e.g. in Dekel perl), and then you can still use shell scripts. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? Max --- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence Dekel wrote: Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. Dekel No. You just need a send-to-lyx command (written e.g. in Dekel perl), and then you can still use shell scripts. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script he suggested to use. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where the LyX process I am talking to runs? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Andre Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script Andre he suggested to use. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. Andre I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a Andre separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where Andre the LyX process I am talking to runs? I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. The interest of doing that is that you do not need to know what means of communication is used and also lyx will read its own prefs to guess where the pipe is. And if you run lyx 1.3.0 and lyx 1.4.0cvs at the same time with different .lyx dirs, you will be sure to communicate with the right one. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Andre I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a Andre separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where Andre the LyX process I am talking to runs? I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to LyX running on machine B. Would that work? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does not lose anything. Since sockets are simple to program, it is not difficult to come up with a simple helper program in C, or perl. Max --- Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to LyX running on machine B. Would that work?
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:14:50AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does not lose anything. I can run single commands with e.g. rsh on other machines. If this would be possible with sockets, I have no complaint. I just have never used them. Andre' PS: I'd be really grateful if removed irrelevant parts from the messages you are quoting. -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. Andre Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to Andre LyX running on machine B. Would that work? It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the same machines. Or, like mozilla, application shown on the same X display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I think. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the same machines. Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to collect applications from different servers just because there is not a single one containing the proper version of everything, let alone all licenses. And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop machine and free to install whatever version he likes... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Andre wrote: It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the same machines. Andre Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does Andre not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to Andre collect applications from different servers just because Andre there is not a single one containing the proper version of Andre everything, let alone all licenses. Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes... If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes... If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. One does not necessarily need the visual feedback of LyX when using the server, so there is no technical guarantee that opening an xterm works. But I guess you are right and for all practical purposes it does not make a difference. Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. Possibly. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I think. If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a lock-file in the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this: lrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock - 130.237.57.34:592 which is neat when you're using a networked file system. Then you can click on URL's shown on one machine and have netscape running on another machine show the new page. I guess you don't really need to have Netscape on this machine, but you do need something that can connect to the socket, i.e. 130.237.57.34:592 in this case. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andre not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to Andre collect applications from different servers just because Andre there is not a single one containing the proper version of Andre everything, let alone all licenses. I have to do this all the time (I hate MATLAB's license server btw). Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes... Amen. If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled... however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ; lpr somefile.ps on occassion, especially when the color printer only works from a specific Solaris machine. I think my point is that you can't really assume that you'll need a graphical connection... maybe you need to save bandwidth (modem)? Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same document... but's that's a different topic. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic, which uses the pipe to work. A sudden change from pipes to socket would break any and all the nice reference managers available for lyx. praedor - -- Conservatives of all times are adventitious liars. - - Friedrich Nietzsche. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+S+HP1i/6R1B/Yh0RAv6fAJ9R1QD4W6R3H+K9hLweBxVloezakwCbBvTA o0rvKQdVbU/+5fnsgk3KLy4= =hpLJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic, which uses the pipe to work. It will be good to have many ways of doing the same thing. So, we can add the sockets and keep the pipes. Max
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Is that a awfully difficult thing to do, or it has some disadvantages? Thanks. Max
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. -- Ronald Florence www.18james.com
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence wrote: Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. No. You just need a send-to-lyx command (written e.g. in perl), and then you can still use shell scripts.
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence Dekel wrote: Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. Dekel No. You just need a send-to-lyx command (written e.g. in Dekel perl), and then you can still use shell scripts. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? Max --- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence Dekel wrote: Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. Dekel No. You just need a send-to-lyx command (written e.g. in Dekel perl), and then you can still use shell scripts. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script he suggested to use. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where the LyX process I am talking to runs? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Andre Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script Andre he suggested to use. Even better, it should be lyx --remote command. Andre I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a Andre separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where Andre the LyX process I am talking to runs? I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. The interest of doing that is that you do not need to know what means of communication is used and also lyx will read its own prefs to guess where the pipe is. And if you run lyx 1.3.0 and lyx 1.4.0cvs at the same time with different .lyx dirs, you will be sure to communicate with the right one. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Andre I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a Andre separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where Andre the LyX process I am talking to runs? I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to LyX running on machine B. Would that work? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does not lose anything. Since sockets are simple to program, it is not difficult to come up with a simple helper program in C, or perl. Max --- Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to LyX running on machine B. Would that work?
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:14:50AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does not lose anything. I can run single commands with e.g. rsh on other machines. If this would be possible with sockets, I have no complaint. I just have never used them. Andre' PS: I'd be really grateful if removed irrelevant parts from the messages you are quoting. -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. Andre Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to Andre LyX running on machine B. Would that work? It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the same machines. Or, like mozilla, application shown on the same X display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I think. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the same machines. Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to collect applications from different servers just because there is not a single one containing the proper version of everything, let alone all licenses. And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop machine and free to install whatever version he likes... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Andre wrote: It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the same machines. Andre Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does Andre not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to Andre collect applications from different servers just because Andre there is not a single one containing the proper version of Andre everything, let alone all licenses. Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes... If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes... If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. One does not necessarily need the visual feedback of LyX when using the server, so there is no technical guarantee that opening an xterm works. But I guess you are right and for all practical purposes it does not make a difference. Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. Possibly. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I think. If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a lock-file in the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this: lrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock - 130.237.57.34:592 which is neat when you're using a networked file system. Then you can click on URL's shown on one machine and have netscape running on another machine show the new page. I guess you don't really need to have Netscape on this machine, but you do need something that can connect to the socket, i.e. 130.237.57.34:592 in this case. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andre not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to Andre collect applications from different servers just because Andre there is not a single one containing the proper version of Andre everything, let alone all licenses. I have to do this all the time (I hate MATLAB's license server btw). Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes... Amen. If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled... however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ; lpr somefile.ps on occassion, especially when the color printer only works from a specific Solaris machine. I think my point is that you can't really assume that you'll need a graphical connection... maybe you need to save bandwidth (modem)? Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same document... but's that's a different topic. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic, which uses the pipe to work. A sudden change from pipes to socket would break any and all the nice reference managers available for lyx. praedor - -- Conservatives of all times are adventitious liars. - - Friedrich Nietzsche. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+S+HP1i/6R1B/Yh0RAv6fAJ9R1QD4W6R3H+K9hLweBxVloezakwCbBvTA o0rvKQdVbU/+5fnsgk3KLy4= =hpLJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote: So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic, which uses the pipe to work. It will be good to have many ways of doing the same thing. So, we can add the sockets and keep the pipes. Max
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Is that a awfully difficult thing to do, or it has some disadvantages? Thanks. Max
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Max Bian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a > discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at least perl for the scripts. -- Ronald Florence www.18james.com
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence wrote: > Max Bian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a > > discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable. > > Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple > shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would require at > least perl for the scripts. No. You just need a "send-to-lyx" command (written e.g. in perl), and then you can still use shell scripts.
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dekel> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence Dekel> wrote: >> Max Bian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was >> a > discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more >> portable. >> >> Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very >> simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would >> require at least perl for the scripts. Dekel> No. You just need a "send-to-lyx" command (written e.g. in Dekel> perl), and then you can still use shell scripts. Even better, it should be "lyx --remote ". JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? Max --- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dekel> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence > Dekel> wrote: > >> Max Bian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there > was > >> a > discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more > >> portable. > >> > >> Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very > >> simple shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets would > >> require at least perl for the scripts. > > Dekel> No. You just need a "send-to-lyx" command (written e.g. in > Dekel> perl), and then you can still use shell scripts. > > Even better, it should be "lyx --remote ". > > JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: > So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script he suggested to use. > > Even better, it should be "lyx --remote ". I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where the LyX process I am talking to runs? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andre> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: >> So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Andre> Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script Andre> he suggested to use. >> > Even better, it should be "lyx --remote ". Andre> I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a Andre> separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where Andre> the LyX process I am talking to runs? I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. The interest of doing that is that you do not need to know what means of communication is used and also lyx will read its own prefs to guess where the pipe is. And if you run lyx 1.3.0 and lyx 1.4.0cvs at the same time with different .lyx dirs, you will be sure to communicate with the right one. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Andre> I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a > Andre> separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where > Andre> the LyX process I am talking to runs? > > I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with > some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, but > just send this command to another running lyx for me, will you?''. Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to LyX running on machine B. Would that work? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does not lose anything. Since sockets are simple to program, it is not difficult to come up with a simple helper program in C, or perl. Max --- Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to LyX > running on > machine B. Would that work?
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:14:50AM -0800, Max Bian wrote: > Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does > not lose anything. I can run single commands with e.g. rsh on other machines. If this would be possible with sockets, I have no complaint. I just have never used them. Andre' PS: I'd be really grateful if removed irrelevant parts from the messages you are quoting. -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with >> some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you, >> but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will >> you?''. Andre> Ok. User on machine A without LyX installed wants to talk to Andre> LyX running on machine B. Would that work? It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the same machines. Or, like mozilla, application shown on the same X display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I think. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of > this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the > same machines. Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to "collect" applications from different servers just because there is not a single one containing the "proper" version of everything, let alone all licenses. And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop machine and free to install whatever version he likes... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andre> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Andre> wrote: >> It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use >> of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications >> on the same machines. Andre> Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does Andre> not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to Andre> "collect" applications from different servers just because Andre> there is not a single one containing the "proper" version of Andre> everything, let alone all licenses. Andre> And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop Andre> machine and free to install whatever version he likes... If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next door. That would be very nasty of you. JMarc
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Andre> And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop > Andre> machine and free to install whatever version he likes... > > If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can > also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. One does not necessarily need the visual feedback of LyX when using the server, so there is no technical guarantee that opening an xterm works. But I guess you are right and for all practical purposes it does not make a difference. > Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next > door. That would be very nasty of you. Possibly. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I > think. If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a "lock"-file in the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this: lrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock -> 130.237.57.34:592 which is neat when you're using a networked file system. Then you can click on URL's shown on one machine and have netscape running on another machine show the new page. I guess you don't really need to have Netscape on this machine, but you do need something that can connect to the socket, i.e. 130.237.57.34:592 in this case. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andre> not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to > Andre> "collect" applications from different servers just because > Andre> there is not a single one containing the "proper" version of > Andre> everything, let alone all licenses. I have to do this all the time (I hate MATLAB's license server btw). > Andre> And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop > Andre> machine and free to install whatever version he likes... Amen. > If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can > also open an xterm on the said other machine and type commands there. You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled... however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ; lpr somefile.ps on occassion, especially when the color printer only works from a specific Solaris machine. I think my point is that you can't really assume that you'll need a "graphical" connection... maybe you need to save bandwidth (modem)? > Or maybe you want to send commands to the running LyX of the guy next > door. That would be very nasty of you. I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same document... but's that's a different topic. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote: > So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since > pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic, which uses the pipe to work. A sudden change from pipes to socket would break any and all the nice reference managers available for lyx. praedor - -- Conservatives of all times are adventitious liars. - - Friedrich Nietzsche. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+S+HP1i/6R1B/Yh0RAv6fAJ9R1QD4W6R3H+K9hLweBxVloezakwCbBvTA o0rvKQdVbU/+5fnsgk3KLy4= =hpLJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
> On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote: > > So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since > > pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch? > > I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic, > which uses > the pipe to work. It will be good to have many ways of doing the same thing. So, we can add the sockets and keep the pipes. Max
Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Hi all, I'm experiencing a problem I hadn't seen with the 1.1.x series, now that I moved to the 1.3 version. I'm using the lyx.org supplied RedHat 8.0 binaries with the QT front end. The problem is that the lyxpipe.in/out files in ~/.lyx/ appear not to be destroyed when lyx exits: [~] \rm .lyx/lyxpipe.* [~] lyx Mutex destroy failure: Device or resource busy # I've quit lyx cleanly and now restart it again: [~] lyx LyXComm: Pipe /usr/local/home/fperez/.lyx-1.3/lyxpipe.in already exists. If no other LyX program is active, please delete the pipe by hand and try again. Mutex destroy failure: Device or resource busy This is problematic for me because I use pybliographic extensively, which communicates with lyx via the server pipes. I can work around the problem by making a simple alias/script which manually removes the pipes, but it's a bit of an annoyance. I figured I'd mention it so developers can take a look at this issue. Best regards, Fernando.
Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Hi all, I'm experiencing a problem I hadn't seen with the 1.1.x series, now that I moved to the 1.3 version. I'm using the lyx.org supplied RedHat 8.0 binaries with the QT front end. The problem is that the lyxpipe.in/out files in ~/.lyx/ appear not to be destroyed when lyx exits: [~] \rm .lyx/lyxpipe.* [~] lyx Mutex destroy failure: Device or resource busy # I've quit lyx cleanly and now restart it again: [~] lyx LyXComm: Pipe /usr/local/home/fperez/.lyx-1.3/lyxpipe.in already exists. If no other LyX program is active, please delete the pipe by hand and try again. Mutex destroy failure: Device or resource busy This is problematic for me because I use pybliographic extensively, which communicates with lyx via the server pipes. I can work around the problem by making a simple alias/script which manually removes the pipes, but it's a bit of an annoyance. I figured I'd mention it so developers can take a look at this issue. Best regards, Fernando.
Bug in 1.3? Server pipes not destroyed
Hi all, I'm experiencing a problem I hadn't seen with the 1.1.x series, now that I moved to the 1.3 version. I'm using the lyx.org supplied RedHat 8.0 binaries with the QT front end. The problem is that the lyxpipe.in/out files in ~/.lyx/ appear not to be destroyed when lyx exits: [~]> \rm .lyx/lyxpipe.* [~]> lyx Mutex destroy failure: Device or resource busy # I've quit lyx cleanly and now restart it again: [~]> lyx LyXComm: Pipe /usr/local/home/fperez/.lyx-1.3/lyxpipe.in already exists. If no other LyX program is active, please delete the pipe by hand and try again. Mutex destroy failure: Device or resource busy This is problematic for me because I use pybliographic extensively, which communicates with lyx via the server pipes. I can work around the problem by making a simple alias/script which manually removes the pipes, but it's a bit of an annoyance. I figured I'd mention it so developers can take a look at this issue. Best regards, Fernando.
