On Thursday 21 February 2008 15:03, Steve Litt wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 12:20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
On Thursday 21 February 2008 15:03, Steve Litt wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 12:20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
On Thursday 21 February 2008 15:03, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 12:20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
> > > variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you explain why?
Qt 4 does not use any QT4* environment variables.
No, this is our doing. But did qt3's qmake use QTDIR variables?
JMarc
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:42:01AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you explain why?
Qt 4 does not use any QT4* environment variables.
No, this is our doing. But did qt3's qmake use QTDIR variables?
Qt 3 relied in several places on the
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you explain why?
Qt 4 does not use any QT4* environment variables.
No, this is our doing. But did qt3's qmake use QTDIR variables?
JMarc
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:42:01AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you explain why?
Qt 4 does not use any QT4* environment variables.
No, this is our doing. But did qt3's qmake use QTDIR variables?
Qt 3 relied in several places on the
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Could you explain why?
>
> Qt 4 does not use any QT4* environment variables.
No, this is our doing. But did qt3's qmake use QTDIR variables?
JMarc
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:42:01AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Could you explain why?
> >
> > Qt 4 does not use any QT4* environment variables.
>
> No, this is our doing. But did qt3's qmake use QTDIR variables?
Qt 3 relied in several
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed, neither by
a distribution nor by LyX.
Could you explain why?
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 09:42, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed,
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed, neither by
a distribution nor by LyX.
Could you explain why?
I'm not sure which statement you'd like explained. The statement I made
was After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:42:25PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones)
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed, neither by
a distribution nor by LyX.
Could you explain why?
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 09:42, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed,
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed, neither by
a distribution nor by LyX.
Could you explain why?
I'm not sure which statement you'd like explained. The statement I made
was After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:42:25PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones)
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
>> variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
>
> The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed, neither by
> a distribution nor by LyX.
Could you
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 09:42, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
> >> variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
> >
> > The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones)
Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The QT4* values are (contrary to Qt 3 ones) _not_ needed, neither by
>> > a distribution nor by LyX.
>>
>> Could you explain why?
>
> I'm not sure which statement you'd like explained. The statement I made
> was "After what I went through, I'd
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:42:25PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
> >> variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
> >
> > The QT4* values are (contrary to
Steve Litt wrote:
How much backward compatibility? Here's my belief:
Age of tools when distro is created: 6 months
Age of distro when installed: 4 months
Time between distro upgrades 24 months
-
Desireable backward compatibility:
On Friday 22 February 2008 03:18, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
How much backward compatibility? Here's my belief:
Age of tools when distro is created: 6 months
Age of distro when installed: 4 months
Time between distro upgrades 24 months
Steve Litt wrote:
How much backward compatibility? Here's my belief:
Age of tools when distro is created: 6 months
Age of distro when installed: 4 months
Time between distro upgrades 24 months
-
Desireable backward compatibility:
On Friday 22 February 2008 03:18, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
How much backward compatibility? Here's my belief:
Age of tools when distro is created: 6 months
Age of distro when installed: 4 months
Time between distro upgrades 24 months
Steve Litt wrote:
How much backward compatibility? Here's my belief:
Age of tools when distro is created: 6 months
Age of distro when installed: 4 months
Time between distro upgrades 24 months
-
Desireable backward compatibility:
On Friday 22 February 2008 03:18, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote:
> > How much backward compatibility? Here's my belief:
> >
> > Age of tools when distro is created: 6 months
> > Age of distro when installed: 4 months
> > Time between distro upgrades 24 months
> >
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:43:12 Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I've promised to keep out of this thread but this is again plain FUD,
LyX-1.5 is perfectly compilable with Qt-4.1.0. The INSTALL file only
says that it has been _tested_ with Qt-4.1.5. All version of Qt-4.1.x
are course binary and
Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to
cure
the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is to send us the corrections.
Pavel
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to cure
the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is to send us the corrections.
On 21.02.08, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Actually the INSTALL file has been cleaned up a lot for 1.5.4, see
attached.
May I propose a small patch for improved clarity?
--- /home/m/INSTALL 2008-02-21 13:56:56.0 +0100
+++ /home/m/INSTALL.old 2008-02-21 13:58:20.0 +0100
@@
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
specifying the qt4 dir.
Actually, the variable we use is QT4DIR.
JMarc
G. Milde wrote:
On 21.02.08, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Actually the INSTALL file has been cleaned up a lot for 1.5.4, see
attached.
May I propose a small patch for improved clarity?
Sure, thanks.
Abdel.
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:48, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to
cure the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
So I'd add something like:
WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
And then add a sentence saying why.
make clean is not enough?
I am asking although I suspect that the
On Thursday 21 February 2008 07:47, Helge Hafting wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
Makes perfect sense to me, and I couldn't have said it better myself. A
person should not have to upgrade their distro every few months in order
to compile the latest apps.
If you want to compile the very _latest_
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL variables
to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
What do you mean?
JMarc
On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
specifying the qt4 dir.
Actually, the variable we use is QT4DIR.
JMarc
That reminds me of one more thing:
After what
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:27:25AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
specifying the qt4 dir.
Actually, the variable we use
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:54:05PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
LyX makes great use of C++ Standard Template Library (STL). This means
that gcc users will have to install the relevant libstdc++ library to
be able to compile this version of LyX.
I'd drop this paragraph. If at all it's the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:48:43PM +, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
So I'd add something like:
WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
And then add a sentence saying why.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:54:54 +0100
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reinstalled on a fresh partition but I still have problems. So among
other things I am giving up on Lyx. More to the point, I am giving up
on recommending Lyx to TEX newbies. If someone can cite a version of
Lyx
On Thursday 21 February 2008 20:03:04 Steve Litt wrote:
--with-version-suffix=1.5.3
You can simply use --with-version-suffix and configure will put the right
version for you. :-)
--
José Abílio
On Thursday 21 February 2008 12:20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
What do you mean?
JMarc
UIC4=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic \
On Thursday 21 February 2008 11:48, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
So I'd add something like:
WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
And then add a sentence saying why.
make
On Thursday 21 February 2008 19:55:28 Steve Litt wrote:
On my box, every make, whether successful or failure, takes about 25
minutes, and ./configure takes 5 minutes. I'm not going to have time to do
that for at least a couple weeks.
In such cases ccache is really useful. :-)
The answer to
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 06:09:12PM -0200, John Coppens wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:54:54 +0100
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reinstalled on a fresh partition but I still have problems. So among
other things I am giving up on Lyx. More to the point, I am giving up
on
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:53:25 +0100
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are talking about Qt 4._1_ and that's quite a bit more than a year
old. So this fits well into your concept of 'grace period'.
Mmmm... Sorry about that. Twice confused. I was convinced having read
somewhere that LyX
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:43:12 Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I've promised to keep out of this thread but this is again plain FUD,
LyX-1.5 is perfectly compilable with Qt-4.1.0. The INSTALL file only
says that it has been _tested_ with Qt-4.1.5. All version of Qt-4.1.x
are course binary and
Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to
cure
the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is to send us the corrections.
Pavel
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to cure
the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is to send us the corrections.
On 21.02.08, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Actually the INSTALL file has been cleaned up a lot for 1.5.4, see
attached.
May I propose a small patch for improved clarity?
--- /home/m/INSTALL 2008-02-21 13:56:56.0 +0100
+++ /home/m/INSTALL.old 2008-02-21 13:58:20.0 +0100
@@
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
specifying the qt4 dir.
Actually, the variable we use is QT4DIR.
JMarc
G. Milde wrote:
On 21.02.08, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Actually the INSTALL file has been cleaned up a lot for 1.5.4, see
attached.
May I propose a small patch for improved clarity?
Sure, thanks.
Abdel.
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:48, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to
cure the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
So I'd add something like:
WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
And then add a sentence saying why.
make clean is not enough?
I am asking although I suspect that the
On Thursday 21 February 2008 07:47, Helge Hafting wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
Makes perfect sense to me, and I couldn't have said it better myself. A
person should not have to upgrade their distro every few months in order
to compile the latest apps.
If you want to compile the very _latest_
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL variables
to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
What do you mean?
JMarc
On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
specifying the qt4 dir.
Actually, the variable we use is QT4DIR.
JMarc
That reminds me of one more thing:
After what
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:27:25AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
specifying the qt4 dir.
Actually, the variable we use
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:54:05PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
LyX makes great use of C++ Standard Template Library (STL). This means
that gcc users will have to install the relevant libstdc++ library to
be able to compile this version of LyX.
I'd drop this paragraph. If at all it's the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:48:43PM +, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
So I'd add something like:
WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
And then add a sentence saying why.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:54:54 +0100
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reinstalled on a fresh partition but I still have problems. So among
other things I am giving up on Lyx. More to the point, I am giving up
on recommending Lyx to TEX newbies. If someone can cite a version of
Lyx
On Thursday 21 February 2008 20:03:04 Steve Litt wrote:
--with-version-suffix=1.5.3
You can simply use --with-version-suffix and configure will put the right
version for you. :-)
--
José Abílio
On Thursday 21 February 2008 12:20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
What do you mean?
JMarc
UIC4=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic \
On Thursday 21 February 2008 11:48, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
So I'd add something like:
WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
And then add a sentence saying why.
make
On Thursday 21 February 2008 19:55:28 Steve Litt wrote:
On my box, every make, whether successful or failure, takes about 25
minutes, and ./configure takes 5 minutes. I'm not going to have time to do
that for at least a couple weeks.
In such cases ccache is really useful. :-)
The answer to
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 06:09:12PM -0200, John Coppens wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:54:54 +0100
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reinstalled on a fresh partition but I still have problems. So among
other things I am giving up on Lyx. More to the point, I am giving up
on
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:53:25 +0100
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are talking about Qt 4._1_ and that's quite a bit more than a year
old. So this fits well into your concept of 'grace period'.
Mmmm... Sorry about that. Twice confused. I was convinced having read
somewhere that LyX
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:43:12 Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I've promised to keep out of this thread but this is again plain FUD,
> LyX-1.5 is perfectly compilable with Qt-4.1.0. The INSTALL file only
> says that it has been _tested_ with Qt-4.1.5. All version of Qt-4.1.x
> are course binary
> Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to
> cure
> the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README & INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is to send us the corrections.
Pavel
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to cure
the problem turned out to be:
Good to hear.
Steve, if you think that README & INSTALL files put you somewhere
in the wrong direction, the best you can do is to send us the corrections.
On 21.02.08, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Actually the INSTALL file has been cleaned up a lot for 1.5.4, see
> attached.
May I propose a small patch for improved clarity?
--- /home/m/INSTALL 2008-02-21 13:56:56.0 +0100
+++ /home/m/INSTALL.old 2008-02-21 13:58:20.0 +0100
@@
"G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
>specifying the qt4 dir.
Actually, the variable we use is QT4DIR.
JMarc
G. Milde wrote:
On 21.02.08, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Actually the INSTALL file has been cleaned up a lot for 1.5.4, see
attached.
May I propose a small patch for improved clarity?
Sure, thanks.
Abdel.
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:48, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to
> > cure the problem turned out to be:
>
> Good to hear.
>
> Steve, if you think that README & INSTALL files put you somewhere
> in the wrong direction, the best you
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
> So I'd add something like:
>
> WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
> BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
>
> And then add a sentence saying why.
make clean is not enough?
I am asking although I suspect that
On Thursday 21 February 2008 07:47, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote:
> > Makes perfect sense to me, and I couldn't have said it better myself. A
> > person should not have to upgrade their distro every few months in order
> > to compile the latest apps.
>
> If you want to compile the very
Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL variables
> to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
What do you mean?
JMarc
On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> "G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
> >specifying the qt4 dir.
>
> Actually, the variable we use is QT4DIR.
>
> JMarc
That reminds me of one more
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:27:25AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
> > >specifying the qt4 dir.
> >
> > Actually, the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:54:05PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> LyX makes great use of C++ Standard Template Library (STL). This means
> that gcc users will have to install the relevant libstdc++ library to
> be able to compile this version of LyX.
I'd drop this paragraph. If at all it's the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 04:48:43PM +, José Matos wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
> > So I'd add something like:
> >
> > WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
> > BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
> >
> > And then add a sentence
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:54:54 +0100
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > reinstalled on a fresh partition but I still have problems. So among
> > other things I am giving up on Lyx. More to the point, I am giving up
> > on recommending Lyx to TEX newbies. If someone can cite a version of
>
On Thursday 21 February 2008 20:03:04 Steve Litt wrote:
> --with-version-suffix=1.5.3
You can simply use --with-version-suffix and configure will put the right
version for you. :-)
--
José Abílio
On Thursday 21 February 2008 12:20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > After what I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL
> > variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> JMarc
On Thursday 21 February 2008 11:48, José Matos wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:24:30 Steve Litt wrote:
> > So I'd add something like:
> >
> > WARNING!!! ALWAYS DELETE AND RESTORE YOUR LYX 1.5.3 SOURCE TREE AFTER A
> > BLOWN ./CONFIGURE OR MAKE!!!
> >
> > And then add a sentence saying
On Thursday 21 February 2008 19:55:28 Steve Litt wrote:
> On my box, every make, whether successful or failure, takes about 25
> minutes, and ./configure takes 5 minutes. I'm not going to have time to do
> that for at least a couple weeks.
In such cases ccache is really useful. :-)
> The
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 06:09:12PM -0200, John Coppens wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:54:54 +0100
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > reinstalled on a fresh partition but I still have problems. So among
> > > other things I am giving up on Lyx. More to the point, I am giving up
>
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:53:25 +0100
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are talking about Qt 4._1_ and that's quite a bit more than a year
> old. So this fits well into your concept of 'grace period'.
Mmmm... Sorry about that. Twice confused. I was convinced having read
somewhere that
deedee wrote:
The only other issue I'm aware of I believe someone already
mentioned. You have to make sure that the devel- files are the
same as the regular ones; just as some software that requires
kernel-headers to install from source, the kernel-headers have to
the same as the current
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:02:34 -0600
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 1:38 PM, Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 02:01, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
Interestingly, it appears that in order to upgrade to qt 2.2.3, I would
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 01:22, you wrote:
Nobody cautioned you yet in this thread. Delete the source tree and
untar a fresh copy before re-setting the environment and re-running
configure. Otherwise, same old mistakes just happen again and again.
I did this recompile myself a few weeks
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:32:02 -0500
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 02:07, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
JOHN CULLETON wrote:
While in the process of trying to add things like Qt4 to my Slack 12
system I managed to mung my ability to send outgoing mail. I
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:38:57 -0500
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 02:01, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
Interestingly, it appears that in order to upgrade to qt 2.2.3, I would
need to upgrade my glibc (because of rtld(GNU_HASH)). I'm sorry,
Micha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In that case you need the 1.5 year old Lyx to match your 1.5 year old distro,
don't you?
So for example you applaud if microsoft decides that each and every
software they issue will be restricted to run only on vista, right?
Curiously, they do not do that.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:16:36 -0500, Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My one remaining problem is that the fonts on the menu, scrollbars and
dialog
boxes are too small for me to read. I'll be looking up how to make them
larger in the next few days.
Hi, Steve.
You might be able to get
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My one remaining problem is that the fonts on the menu, scrollbars and dialog
boxes are too small for me to read. I'll be looking up how to make them
larger in the next few days.
Try to run qtconfig (the qt4 version of course).
JMarc
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 08:40, you wrote:
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My one remaining problem is that the fonts on the menu, scrollbars and
dialog boxes are too small for me to read. I'll be looking up how to make
them larger in the next few days.
Try to run qtconfig (the
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:39:55 +0100
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Micha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In that case you need the 1.5 year old Lyx to match your 1.5 year old
distro, don't you?
So for example you applaud if microsoft decides that each and every
software they
1 - 100 of 285 matches
Mail list logo
