Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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.
> >
> > What do you mean?
> >
> > JMarc
>
> UIC4=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic \
> MOC4=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/moc \
> ./configure \
>   --with-qt4-dir=/usr/lib/qt4 \
>   --with-qt4-includes=/usr/lib/qt4/include \
>   --with-qt4-libraries=/usr/lib/qt4/lib \
>   --with-version-suffix=1.5.3
>
> It might not all be needed, but the downside risk of failure makes the tiny
> extra effort worth it. I looked over the ./configure script, and it makes
> use of all those values. The logic of deducing them was a little more than
> I had time to figure out, but I'm telling Troubleshooters.Com readers to
> just go ahead and use all of those strongarms.

I just went through this again, this time on my laptop, and let it be known 
far and wide that trying to install libqt4-devel-4.1.4-12mdv2007.0.i586.rpm, 
I had to use the dreaded --nodeps flag, because it errored out on a libqtxml4 
dependency, and yet when I tried to install libqtxml4 via RPM, it said the 
module was already installed.

So anyone using Mandriva 2007, be aware of this glitch. I'm not saying to 
take --nodeps lightly, but if you run into a contradiction of libtxml4's 
installation or lack thereof, this might be what's needed.

By the way, Mandriva 2008 compiles 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 quite nicely.

SteveT


Steve Litt
Recession Relief Package
http://www.recession-relief.US

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

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 correct setting of QTDIR.  Can't
remember whether qmake was affected, but my gut feeling says 'yes'.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

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

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

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) _not_ needed, neither by 
> > a distribution nor by LyX.
> 
> Could you explain why?

Qt 4 does not use any QT4* environment variables.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

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 strongarm ALL 
> variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.", so let me 
> explain that one:

It was rather Andre's statement.

> If, by leaving an environment variable to its default, a qt3 value sneaks in, 
> the troubleshooting necessary to find and fix the problem would exceed by a 
> factor of 100 the time it would take to strongarm every variable to its qt4 
> value. Therefore, whether or not the default values *should* produce the 
> right result, I'd recommend strongarming it.

I personally would not recommend this value, since the best solution
in the long run is to try what is supposed to work and report a bug
when it does not. In this case --with-qt4-dir=/some/dir is all you
should need.

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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, neither by
> > a distribution nor by LyX.
>
> Could you explain why?
>
> JMarc

Hi JMarc,

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 strongarm ALL 
variables to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.", so let me 
explain that one:

If, by leaving an environment variable to its default, a qt3 value sneaks in, 
the troubleshooting necessary to find and fix the problem would exceed by a 
factor of 100 the time it would take to strongarm every variable to its qt4 
value. Therefore, whether or not the default values *should* produce the 
right result, I'd recommend strongarming it.

SteveT

Steve Litt
Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
http://www.troubleshooters.com/

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

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?

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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
> >-
> > Desireable backward compatibility:   34 months
>
> Just for your info: LyX-1.5.0 came out Jul 31 2007 and Qt4.1.0 came out
> Aug 19 2005. So we had approximately 2 years backward compatibility at
> the time 1.5.0 went out.
>
> > Dependencies aren't fun for anyone. By going back a little farther with
> > backward compatibility, especially on packages that are completely
> > interwoven with large numbers of programs in the distribution, the
> > application developer can make it much easier on the user who needs the
> > features of the newer program (in my case, outline view).
>
> Then you might want to go straight to 1.6.0svn:
> http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX16#toc26
>
> WARNING: 1.6.0 will require Qt4.2.0 which was out Oct 04 2006. So it
> looks like we will have less than two years this time. But, before you
> ask, the switch to 4.2 enabled us to remove a lot of hacks and work
> around in the code and also to bring in some new goodies (see link
> above). At the time 1.6.0 will be out, Qt4.4 will already be out so
> requiring Qt4.2 is not too demanding IMO.
>
> Abdel.

Looks to me like Mandriva 2008 comes with 
qt4-common-4.3.1-12mdv2008.0.i586.rpm, so that shouldn't be a problem for me, 
at any rate. I'll just upgrade Mandriva when I want LyX 1.6.

Thanks

SteveT


-- 
Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

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:   34 months


Just for your info: LyX-1.5.0 came out Jul 31 2007 and Qt4.1.0 came out 
Aug 19 2005. So we had approximately 2 years backward compatibility at 
the time 1.5.0 went out.


Dependencies aren't fun for anyone. By going back a little farther with 
backward compatibility, especially on packages that are completely interwoven 
with large numbers of programs in the distribution, the application developer 
can make it much easier on the user who needs the features of the newer 
program (in my case, outline view).


Then you might want to go straight to 1.6.0svn: 
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX16#toc26


WARNING: 1.6.0 will require Qt4.2.0 which was out Oct 04 2006. So it 
looks like we will have less than two years this time. But, before you 
ask, the switch to 4.2 enabled us to remove a lot of hacks and work 
around in the code and also to bring in some new goodies (see link 
above). At the time 1.6.0 will be out, Qt4.4 will already be out so 
requiring Qt4.2 is not too demanding IMO.


Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[John Coppens]

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 wanted 4.3.x, and I just checked - Slackware 12.0
still has Qt-3.3.8. They are getting a bit too conservative! Qt4.3.1 for
Slackware is available from

http://slackware-current.net/list.php?f=20&c=22 for those who don't
want to compile.

Keep it up guys (I mean LyX, not this thread...). Cheers...

John

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

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 recommending Lyx to TEX newbies. If someone can cite a version of
> > > Lyx that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack (12)
> > > then I may give it a try again. 
> > 
> > Funny, chosing a do-it-yourself distro and not being able to compile a
> > single package does not go well together in my opinion. But then, I am
> > known for having strange opinions...
> 
> Slackware 12.0 is hardly a do-it-yourself distro. I've been installing
> versions for almost 10 years, and compiling LyXs for just under that.
> There are up-to-date packages for Qt, though I compiled the one needed
> for LyX myself, without problems.
> 
> Though I can understand the feelings about Qt 4.4, I accept the criteria
> of the developpers too. I _would_ vote for a 'grace' period of, say 6
> months to 1 year, to allow distros to be compiled and distributed with
> the necessary tools. Not everyone is able to compile a project like Qt
> (just one reason is that not everyone is able to read the instructions in
> English).

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'.

Andre'

[PS: That 4.4 is considered outdated in some places, too, is completely
irrelevant here ;-}]

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[José Matos]

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 that *would* be good to put in the doucmentation.

  FWIW I consider it not working to be a bug that needs to be fixed.
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[José Matos]

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

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[John Coppens]

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 that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack (12)
> > then I may give it a try again. 
> 
> Funny, chosing a do-it-yourself distro and not being able to compile a
> single package does not go well together in my opinion. But then, I am
> known for having strange opinions...

Slackware 12.0 is hardly a do-it-yourself distro. I've been installing
versions for almost 10 years, and compiling LyXs for just under that.
There are up-to-date packages for Qt, though I compiled the one needed
for LyX myself, without problems.

Though I can understand the feelings about Qt 4.4, I accept the criteria
of the developpers too. I _would_ vote for a 'grace' period of, say 6
months to 1 year, to allow distros to be compiled and distributed with
the necessary tools. Not everyone is able to compile a project like Qt
(just one reason is that not everyone is able to read the instructions in
English).

John

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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 \
MOC4=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/moc \
./configure \
  --with-qt4-dir=/usr/lib/qt4 \
  --with-qt4-includes=/usr/lib/qt4/include \
  --with-qt4-libraries=/usr/lib/qt4/lib \
  --with-version-suffix=1.5.3

It might not all be needed, but the downside risk of failure makes the tiny 
extra effort worth it. I looked over the ./configure script, and it makes use 
of all those values. The logic of deducing them was a little more than I had 
time to figure out, but I'm telling Troubleshooters.Com readers to just go 
ahead and use all of those strongarms.

Thanks

SteveT

Steve Litt
Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
http://www.troubleshooters.com/

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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 clean is not enough?
>
> I am asking although I suspect that the answer is "no." :-(

I don't know. To test that I'd probably have to:

1) Uninstall libqt4-devel
2) rm -rf ~/junk/lyx-1.5.3
3) cd ~/junk
4) tar xjvf lyx-1.5.3-whatever.bz2
5) ./configure
6) reinstall libqt4-devel
7) ./configure
8) make (should error out)
9) make clean
10) ./configure
11) make (should work if make clean is OK)

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.

The answer to that *would* be good to put in the doucmentation.

Thanks

STeveT

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

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.
> 
> make clean is not enough?

I just checked it indeed removes all generated files in
src/frontends/qt4.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

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 "C++ Standard Library",
and I don't know any distribution that does not install libstdc++ by
default.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

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 is QT4DIR.
> >
> > JMarc
> 
> That reminds me of one more thing:
> 
> 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.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

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

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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_ apps, then you will sometimes
> need the _latest_ tools and libraries too. If that is inconvenient,
> stay with an older version of the app a little longer until the
> distro catches up.  That's what I do. I compile my own LyX and a few
> other programs - but the wast majority of my software stays
> at the debian testing level. I.e. not the latest.

[clip]

> A fine philosophy - but some people don't make the extra effort of
> following it
> to the same extent as you do. LyX don't force you to use the
> latest TeX or qt, but doesn't work with arbitrarily old versions either.

Hi Helge,

I think what we're discussing is a matter of degree. I certainly don't want to 
saddle developers with 5 years of backward compatibility. I doubt you'd 
approve of requiring a tool that just came out a week ago -- everyone would 
have to upgrade their tools just to compile your app.

So the question is -- how much backward compatibility?

I think the answer depends on two factors:

1) How much of a hassle is it for the developers to go with an older tool?
2) How much of a hassle is it for the user to upgrade his tool?

Hypothetically, if the tool is larrysLittleOutline that nobody's heard of, the 
user will have absolutely no problem installing larrysLittleOutline, always 
assuming larrysLittleOutline doesn't have nasty dependencies of its own. In 
that case, why not use the latest and greatest tool?

But if the tool is Qt, or gcc, or pyGTK, upgrading puts the user in a 
spaghetti bowl of entangled dependencies, and on many distros the likelihood 
is the upgrade will fail, or worse, break some of his existing software. In 
this case, backward compatibility should be the priority.

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:   34 months

Yeah, I know, most people upgrade their distros more often than every 2 years, 
but there are many that wait 2 years, and I don't think that's outside the 
realm of reason, assuming they have a good firewall and are on a standalone 
machine or a very trusted LAN.

Dependencies aren't fun for anyone. By going back a little farther with 
backward compatibility, especially on packages that are completely interwoven 
with large numbers of programs in the distribution, the application developer 
can make it much easier on the user who needs the features of the newer 
program (in my case, outline view).

Thanks

SteveT
 
Steve Litt
Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
http://www.troubleshooters.com/

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[José Matos]

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 answer is "no." :-(

> Thanks
>
> SteveT

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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 I went through, I'd recommend that someone strongarm ALL variables 
to the Qt4 values, and not leave anything to chance.

SteveT

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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 to send us the corrections.
>
> Pavel

I'm debriefing myself on what went wrong and how to prevent it, and if it's 
not preventable how to recognize it early.

For now, the one bad piece of information was actually a lack of 
information -- specifically, that an errored out ./configure or maybe even an 
errored out make leave junk in the tree preventing compilation, even after 
the root cause (in my case lack of libqt4-devel) was cured.

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.

Thanks

SteveT

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

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.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

"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

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[G. Milde]

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
@@ -13,13 +13,13 @@
   configures LyX according to your system. 
   When compiling for Qt, you may have to set
  --with-qt4-dir=
-   or the environment variable QTDIR. 
+   if the environment variable QTDIR is not set. 
 
2) make
   compiles the program.
 
3) src/lyx
-  runs the program so you can test it before installing.
+  runs the program so you can check it out.
 
4) make install
   will install it. You can use "make install-strip" instead


Rationale:

1. A Linux distribution might provide alternative means to QTDIR for
   specifying the qt4 dir.

2. "check out" might be confusing (regarding the next section about SVN).
   "test" is IMO less ambiguous.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

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.


Actually the INSTALL file has been cleaned up a lot for 1.5.4, see attached.

Abdel.
Compiling and installing LyX


Quick compilation guide
---

These four steps will compile, test and install LyX:

0) Linux users beware: if compiling the Qt frontend, you need
   qt4 and qt4-devel packages of the same version to compile LyX.

1) ./configure
   configures LyX according to your system. 
   When compiling for Qt, you may have to set
 --with-qt4-dir=
   if the environment variable QTDIR is not set. 

2) make
   compiles the program.

3) src/lyx
   runs the program so you can check it out.

4) make install
   will install it. You can use "make install-strip" instead
   if you want a smaller binary.


Note for Subversion checkouts
-

If you have checked this out from Subversion, you need to have:
* automake >= 1.5
* autoconf >= 2.52
* gettext >= 0.12
Then type "./autogen.sh" to build the needed configuration
files and proceed as stated below.

You will also probably need GNU m4 (perhaps installed as gm4).

Requirements


First of all, you will also need a recent C++ compiler, where recent
means that the compilers are close to C++ standard conforming (gcc 3.x).

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.

LyX should be compatible with Qt version 4.1.x to 4.3.x. The only
special point to make is that you must ensure that both LyX and the Qt
libraries are compiled with the same C++ compiler.

Note that if Qt is using Xft2/fontconfig, you may need to install the
latex-xft-fonts package (at ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/contrib/) to get
maths symbols displayed properly. To find out, type:

ldd `which lyx` | grep fontconfig

at the console. Most recent distributions are known to use fontconfig.

If, however, your version of Qt does not use fontconfig, then TeX
fonts should be added to the font path. 'man xset' is your friend.


* Other things to note

If you make modifications to files in src/ (for example by applying a
patch), you will need to have the GNU gettext package installed, due
to some dependencies in the makefiles. You can get the latest version
from:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gettext/

To use the thesaurus, you will need to install libAikSaurus, available
from:
http://aiksaurus.sourceforge.net/

The two following programs should be available at configuration time:

  o LaTeX2e should be correctly setup for the user you are logged in
as. Otherwise, LyX will not be able to run a number of tests. Note
that users can run these tests manually with Tools>Reconfigure.

  o Python 2.3 or newer installed to be able to import older LyX files
with the lyx2lyx script (this script is called automatically when
opening a file).


Creating the Makefile
-

LyX can be configured using GNU autoconf utility which attempts to guess
the configuration needed to suit your system.  The standard way to use it
is described in the file INSTALL.autoconf.  In most cases you will be able
to create the Makefile by typing

  ./configure

For more complicated cases, LyX configure takes the following specific
flags:

  o --with-extra-lib=DIRECTORY that specifies the path where LyX will
find extra libraries (qt4) it needs. Defaults to NONE
(i.e. search in standard places). You can specify several
directories, separated by colons.

  o --with-extra-inc=DIRECTORY that gives the place where LyX will find
extra headers.  Defaults to NONE (i.e.  search in standard places).
You can specify several directories, separated by colons.

  o --with-extra-prefix[=DIRECTORY] that is equivalent to
   --with-extra-lib=DIRECTORY/lib --with-extra-inc=DIRECTORY/include
If DIRECTORY is not specified, the current prefix is used.

  o --with-version-suffix will install LyX as lyx-, e.g. lyx-1.5.1
The LyX data directory will be something like /lyx-1.5.1/.
Additionally your user configuration files will be found in e.g.
$HOME/.lyx-1.5.1

You can use this feature to install more than one version of LyX
on the same system. You can optionally specify a "version" of your
own, by doing something like :
   ./configure --with-version-suffix=-latestsvn

Note that the standard configure options --program-prefix,
--program-suffix and the others will not affect the shared LyX
directory etc. so it is recommended that you use --with-versi

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Pavel Sanda]

> 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

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[José Matos]

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 source compilable.

  But as we know things rarely are so black and white, this is why we 
advertise the _tested_ 4.1.5.

  In version 1.5.3 the README says that the minimum Qt required version is 
4.1.1

> Abdel.

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Steve Litt wrote:

In hindsight, I'm not going to disagree with you, always assuming it would 
have taken extra work to leave xforms in. My concern was more with the choice 
of 4.1.5 as a minimum rather than earlier 4.x (I actually got it working with 
4.1.4).


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 source compilable.


Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Wednesday 20 February 2008 17:45, Micha wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:39:12 +0100
>
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Micha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > curiously, nothing runs properly on vista, including vista, and they
> > > keep implying that nothing will run ok off vista very soon so I guess
> > > you are wrong.
> >
> > You still did not tell me whether you thought it was the right way to
> > behave :)
>
> Nothing microsoft is a good way to behave. But more to the point I believe
> that if the new library brings in enough usefulness it's good to migrate.
> If keeping backward compatibility is not too hard it's useful too, but is
> of lower priority.
>
> look at the other side of the coin, if the dev's spend all their time
> maintaining backward compatibility they don't spend it on new features/bug
> squashing etc. Also, for those of us using newer distros keeping the old
> libraries around is not that easy either.

Hi Micha,

I think there's a happy medium. It would be hard to keep the base happy if, 
for instance, Qt 4.4 were put into LyX a week after Qt4.4 went stable. Most 
would be at the mercy of packagers if that were done.

On the other hand, it would be hard to gain new users and keep the base happy, 
and would royally perturb developers if backward compatibility extended 5 
years.

My personal opinion of the sweet spot would be 3 years of backward 
compatibility. The stable distro incorporates stuff 6 months old, the average 
user gets the distro when it's maybe 4 months old, and a fair number of users 
upgrade their distro as seldom as every 2 years.

A 2 year back compatibility might also be considered reasonable, but any less 
than that and a significant number of users will be using old LyX because 
it's too hard to fit their current OS with new LyX.


>
> In this case I believe that qt4 was a right choice (for a whole lot of
> reasons) and dropping xforms support was also a right choice (for a whole
> lot of not completely disjoint reasons).

In hindsight, I'm not going to disagree with you, always assuming it would 
have taken extra work to leave xforms in. My concern was more with the choice 
of 4.1.5 as a minimum rather than earlier 4.x (I actually got it working with 
4.1.4). My point is, if one's distro is less than 2 years old, it's a PITA to 
upgrade Qt just to run an app. And what if upgrading Qt breaks other apps 
(it's been known to happen).

>
> On the other had you should let the new libraries mature before running
> over to them (and qt4 has done that).

The preceding sentence pretty well sums up my thoughts.

SteveT

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Micha]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:39:12 +0100
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Micha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 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.
> >
> > curiously, nothing runs properly on vista, including vista, and they keep
> > implying that nothing will run ok off vista very soon so I guess you are
> > wrong.
> 
> You still did not tell me whether you thought it was the right way to
> behave :)
> 

Nothing microsoft is a good way to behave. But more to the point I believe
that if the new library brings in enough usefulness it's good to migrate. If
keeping backward compatibility is not too hard it's useful too, but is of lower
priority.

look at the other side of the coin, if the dev's spend all their time
maintaining backward compatibility they don't spend it on new features/bug
squashing etc. Also, for those of us using newer distros keeping the old
libraries around is not that easy either.

In this case I believe that qt4 was a right choice (for a whole lot of reasons)
and dropping xforms support was also a right choice (for a whole lot of not
completely disjoint reasons).

On the other had you should let the new libraries mature before running over to
them (and qt4 has done that).

> JMarc
> 

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Micha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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.
>
> curiously, nothing runs properly on vista, including vista, and they keep
> implying that nothing will run ok off vista very soon so I guess you are 
> wrong.

You still did not tell me whether you thought it was the right way to
behave :)

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Micha]

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 issue will be restricted to run only on vista, right?
> Curiously, they do not do that.
> 

curiously, nothing runs properly on vista, including vista, and they keep
implying that nothing will run ok off vista very soon so I guess you are wrong.

> JMarc
> 

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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 qt4 version of course).
>
> JMarc

Thanks JMarc and Ethan,

qt4config was able to make the menu fonts visible, and also to animate menus 
the same as 1.4, where the highlight moves with the mouse pointer.

Thanks

SteveT

Steve Litt
Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
http://www.troubleshooters.com/

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

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

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

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.

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Ethan Metsger]

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 the fonts larger using qtconfig.  I run a  
GNOME-based desktop with some qt-dependent programs and have been able to  
modify font sizes that way without any trouble.


Best,

Ethan ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://uppertank.net/ethanm

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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 ago on Scientific Linux and I
> ended up setting QTDIR and QTHOME in the environment.  That fixed it.
>
> Also, you should only have the devel package for one version of QT at
> a time.  So after putting in the qt4 devel thing, make sure  you have
> no qt3 devel stuff left.
>
> pj

Thanks Paul,

Deleting and re-extracting the source tree did the trick. So the steps to cure 
the problem turned out to be:

1) Install libqt4-devel-4.1.4 to match my qt4-common-4.1.4
2) Delete the source tree
3) 
UIC=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic ./configure --with-qt4-dir=/usr/lib/qt4 
--with-qt4-includes=/usr/lib/qt4/include --with-qt4-libraries=/usr/lib/qt4/lib 

Thanks go out to Jeremy Reed for the command in #3.

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.

Thanks

SteveT

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Micha]

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
> > > > need to upgrade my glibc (because of rtld(GNU_HASH)). I'm sorry, but
> > > > that's just too much to expect from a user.
> > >
> > > No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
> > > numbers etc.
> >
> > Of course offense was intended. A typo, or even a series of like typos, does
> > not confusion make.
> >
> > > I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README
> > > and INSTALL that come with the source.
> >
> > Quite a leap of logic.
> >
> > > As an end-user, either you wait
> > > for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
> > > step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX.
> >
> > That's exactly my point. When the step by step implies messing with the very
> > vitals of your 1.5 year old OS, there's something very wrong with the step
> > by step.
> >

and if I recall correctly apart from the no unicode support of xforms, the
reason for qt4, besides being mature enough not to stick with qt3, was license
support to allow easy porting of lyx to windows and mac.

> Well, I see why people are upset with your tone now.
> 
> Once we get to the point of compiling software, expecting instructions
> to be 'idiot proof' is a mistake. The GNU software build process is
> fairly widespread and pretty easy to use, but it is not intended for
> people who aren't willing/able to experiment and learn.
> 
> Rebuilding QT is not messing with "The very vitals" of an operating
> system.  At worst, it is mettling with an outer part of the graphical
> interface.
> 
> But you can/should protect yourself by leaving your "operating system"
> untouched.  If you are re-building QT from source, what you do is set
> the prefix to install into a nonstandard place, say
> /home/steve/packages/qt and then when you build LyX, you tell it to
> use that version of QT.  And in the configure statement for LyX, you
> set the prefix on LyX to install into /home/steve/packages/, so it
> does not affect the "operating system" even in the littlest bit.  This
> can all be installed as a non root user and it never affects anyone.
> 
> 
> > > Many users
> > > compile LyX without problems.
> >
> > That's relevent why?
> 
> That is supposed to give you the confidence to feel that, if you
> understood what was going on in the build process, you would succeed.
> If you pay attention to the advice people give you, you can make it
> work.
> 

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Micha]

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, but
> > > that's just too much to expect from a user.
> >
> > No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
> > numbers etc. 
> 
> Of course offense was intended. A typo, or even a series of like typos, does 
> not confusion make.
> 
> > I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README 
> > and INSTALL that come with the source. 
> 
> Quite a leap of logic.
> 
> > As an end-user, either you wait 
> > for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
> > step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX. 
> 
> That's exactly my point. When the step by step implies messing with the very 
> vitals of your 1.5 year old OS, there's something very wrong with the step by 
> step.
> 

In that case you need the 1.5 year old Lyx to match your 1.5 year old distro,
don't you?

> > Many users 
> > compile LyX without problems.
> 
> That's relevent why?
> 
> SteveT
> 
> Steve Litt
> Books written in LyX:
>   Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
>   Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
>   Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
> 

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Micha]

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
> > > 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 that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack
> > > (12) then I may give it a try again.
> > >
> > > There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that
> > > compels them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are
> > > not widely available.
> >
> > Please stop this non sense.
> 
> 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.
> 

You are getting you direction wrong, a person should have to upgrade their
software to keep working with their old distro. Upgraded software quite
understandably uses upgraded libraries which quite understandably requires
upgrading dependent software. Otherwise you would greatly cripple any
advancement of software. And that's what distros are for, to make sure that you
upgrade all dependencies at one time.

> >
> > > Qt 4 is the most notable of these attractive
> > > nuisances. True, I can install a Kubuntu 4 partition and get KDE 4
> > > which uses Qt4. But Koffice and a host of other things don't work
> > > with KDE 4. Besides, I don't like Debian.
> >
> > Back in the days I was using Slackware, I used to compile everything. If
> > you are not able to compile Qt and LyX, pay someone to do it for you and
> > stop complaining about people developing those programs for *FREE*.
> 
> I guarantee you if I so chose I could make an app you could not compile and I 
> could. But when I make free software, I try my best to make sure the user 
> will be able to follow the instructions on any Linux distro to install the 
> app. With UMENU, I went so far as to create my own DOM tree objects rather 
> than have the user need to deal with CPAN packages and possibly mess up his 
> perl (I've seen CPAN package compilation mess up perl).
> 
> You may argue that UMENU doesn't come close to the functionality required for 
> LyX, and you'd be absolutely right. But it's the philosophy I'm speaking of.
> 
> I'm sure John will stop complaining about something developed for free. 
> However, as he noted, he'll also stop recommending it, depriving the project 
> of users, documenters, and possibly developers. Sure, John is a drop in the 
> bucket and won't be missed, but when a development community starts dissing 
> individuals unable to navigate dependency hell to install the app, the future 
> might get a little rocky.
> >
> > > I am writing this via my online mailbox attached to my webpage. Trust
> > > me it is a helluva way to do my daily work.
> > >
> > > John Culleton TeX since 1995.
> >
> > Just stay with TeX and stop annoying us.
> 
> Yeah, that's the way to get LyX users -- tell em if they're not willing to 
> upgrade the very vitals of their OS so that the developers can use the latest 
> and greatest Qt instead of providing compatibility with a couple year old 
> version (Qt 4 came out summer 2005, but Qt 4.2 is much newer), they should go 
> somewhere else.
> 
> SteveT
>  
> Steve Litt
> Books written in LyX:
>   Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
>   Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
>   Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
> 

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

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 kernel. But I believe that's true of all 
distributions.


Sorry for the nontechnical language, but I'm just an end user.


No need to be sorry. You managed to explain this very well and you also 
confirmed me that an end user is able to compile LyX easily if he 
documents himself a tiny bit and/or ask questions in a gentle manner.


Thanks,
Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 02:01, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:

Steve Litt wrote:



Then there's the fact that some of us have dialup, and some in rural
areas are years from getting broadband. The "just upgrade your qt"
suggestion could be a day's downloading over a phone line that could go
down any time.

Most of the free software I've written has been in Perl or Ruby or Vim,
but I've always tried very hard to have it installable on almost
anything.

Man, we're talking about a full blown C++ word processor here... I
personally find your attitude a bit insulting towards the people who
develop LyX.


If I read your words correctly, you're insulted because as a C++ developer on 
a full blown word processor/converter project, users who need a day to 
download the latest Qt ask you to be compatible with older Qt's so that they 
don't need to spend a day downloading.


Something else: Many of the new feature you will maybe someday see in 
1.5 are a direct result of our choice of Qt4.1 for development. If you 
want to resurrect the xforms or the qt3 frontends from death, feel free 
to do it, this is open source, it's all in SVN. If you are not happy 
with the choice of Qt4.1 just stay with LyX-1.4.2 (strong advice: 
upgrade to 1.4.5.1 at least). This is a perfectly fine choice too, you 
don't have to use the latest version of LyX.


I am out of this thread now.

Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Steve Litt wrote:
Yeah, that's the way to get LyX users -- tell em if they're not willing to 
upgrade the very vitals of their OS so that the developers can use the latest 
and greatest Qt instead of providing compatibility with a couple year old 
version (Qt 4 came out summer 2005, but Qt 4.2 is much newer), they should go 
somewhere else.


Stop the FUD: Only Qt-4.1 is required!

Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 02:01, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:

Steve Litt wrote:



Then there's the fact that some of us have dialup, and some in rural
areas are years from getting broadband. The "just upgrade your qt"
suggestion could be a day's downloading over a phone line that could go
down any time.

Most of the free software I've written has been in Perl or Ruby or Vim,
but I've always tried very hard to have it installable on almost
anything.

Man, we're talking about a full blown C++ word processor here... I
personally find your attitude a bit insulting towards the people who
develop LyX.


If I read your words correctly, you're insulted because as a C++ developer on 
a full blown word processor/converter project, users who need a day to 
download the latest Qt


Please try to investigate a bit before stating lies: Only Qt-4.1 is 
required for LyX-1.5, latest is Qt-4.3.


ask you to be compatible with older Qt's so that they 
don't need to spend a day downloading.


Yep, you don't have the right to ask me anything.



Or was your intent a subtle dig that my apps aren't full blown C++ word 
processor/converters?


That too yes.

Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Pavel Sanda]

> > > 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
> > > 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 that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack
> > > (12) then I may give it a try again.
> > >
> > > There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that
> > > compels them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are
> > > not widely available.
> >
> > Please stop this non sense.
> 
> 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.

1. There is no reason for xform lament. You have been already said that there is
   no unicode wrt xforms. Now unicode was main target of 1.5, so obsoleting 
xforms
   was not some arbitrary caprice or obsession about newest tools, currently >2 
years
   old.

2. There is a clear difference between installing lyx within certain distro
   and compiling it for yourself. Installing is for normal user and distro
   devs are responsible to preserve user from dependency hell which 
automatically
   come with new apps. The moment you step out of this model you must be
   prepared for the problems you encounter now. Please accept them, this is
   the way world is.

3. Even if you take the more adventurous trip of compiling it for yourself,
   it is not true that you are forced you to upgrade vital part of your OS. 
   You can compile and install both Qt & LyX locally without single root
   access on your machine. If you dont know how, ask and learn it.

4. There is no need to spent your energy in further flaming. If you wanted to 
send
   some complain word about that qt4 thing, I'm sure people already understand
   your point (ok, maybe they don't agree, but thats different story).

I'm also sure people want to help you, so lets come back to particular problems 
you 
are facing when compiling LyX. Further mails about infection diseases only upset
people on both sides and won't solve anything IMO.

Good night :)
Pavel

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 02:01, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote:

> > Then there's the fact that some of us have dialup, and some in rural
> > areas are years from getting broadband. The "just upgrade your qt"
> > suggestion could be a day's downloading over a phone line that could go
> > down any time.
> >
> > Most of the free software I've written has been in Perl or Ruby or Vim,
> > but I've always tried very hard to have it installable on almost
> > anything.
>
> Man, we're talking about a full blown C++ word processor here... I
> personally find your attitude a bit insulting towards the people who
> develop LyX.

If I read your words correctly, you're insulted because as a C++ developer on 
a full blown word processor/converter project, users who need a day to 
download the latest Qt ask you to be compatible with older Qt's so that they 
don't need to spend a day downloading.

Or was your intent a subtle dig that my apps aren't full blown C++ word 
processor/converters?

SteveT

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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
> > 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 that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack
> > (12) then I may give it a try again.
> >
> > There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that
> > compels them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are
> > not widely available.
>
> Please stop this non sense.

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.

>
> > Qt 4 is the most notable of these attractive
> > nuisances. True, I can install a Kubuntu 4 partition and get KDE 4
> > which uses Qt4. But Koffice and a host of other things don't work
> > with KDE 4. Besides, I don't like Debian.
>
> Back in the days I was using Slackware, I used to compile everything. If
> you are not able to compile Qt and LyX, pay someone to do it for you and
> stop complaining about people developing those programs for *FREE*.

I guarantee you if I so chose I could make an app you could not compile and I 
could. But when I make free software, I try my best to make sure the user 
will be able to follow the instructions on any Linux distro to install the 
app. With UMENU, I went so far as to create my own DOM tree objects rather 
than have the user need to deal with CPAN packages and possibly mess up his 
perl (I've seen CPAN package compilation mess up perl).

You may argue that UMENU doesn't come close to the functionality required for 
LyX, and you'd be absolutely right. But it's the philosophy I'm speaking of.

I'm sure John will stop complaining about something developed for free. 
However, as he noted, he'll also stop recommending it, depriving the project 
of users, documenters, and possibly developers. Sure, John is a drop in the 
bucket and won't be missed, but when a development community starts dissing 
individuals unable to navigate dependency hell to install the app, the future 
might get a little rocky.
>
> > I am writing this via my online mailbox attached to my webpage. Trust
> > me it is a helluva way to do my daily work.
> >
> > John Culleton TeX since 1995.
>
> Just stay with TeX and stop annoying us.

Yeah, that's the way to get LyX users -- tell em if they're not willing to 
upgrade the very vitals of their OS so that the developers can use the latest 
and greatest Qt instead of providing compatibility with a couple year old 
version (Qt 4 came out summer 2005, but Qt 4.2 is much newer), they should go 
somewhere else.

SteveT
 
Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Paul Johnson]

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
> > > need to upgrade my glibc (because of rtld(GNU_HASH)). I'm sorry, but
> > > that's just too much to expect from a user.
> >
> > No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
> > numbers etc.
>
> Of course offense was intended. A typo, or even a series of like typos, does
> not confusion make.
>
> > I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README
> > and INSTALL that come with the source.
>
> Quite a leap of logic.
>
> > As an end-user, either you wait
> > for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
> > step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX.
>
> That's exactly my point. When the step by step implies messing with the very
> vitals of your 1.5 year old OS, there's something very wrong with the step by
> step.
>
Well, I see why people are upset with your tone now.

Once we get to the point of compiling software, expecting instructions
to be 'idiot proof' is a mistake. The GNU software build process is
fairly widespread and pretty easy to use, but it is not intended for
people who aren't willing/able to experiment and learn.

Rebuilding QT is not messing with "The very vitals" of an operating
system.  At worst, it is mettling with an outer part of the graphical
interface.

But you can/should protect yourself by leaving your "operating system"
untouched.  If you are re-building QT from source, what you do is set
the prefix to install into a nonstandard place, say
/home/steve/packages/qt and then when you build LyX, you tell it to
use that version of QT.  And in the configure statement for LyX, you
set the prefix on LyX to install into /home/steve/packages/, so it
does not affect the "operating system" even in the littlest bit.  This
can all be installed as a non root user and it never affects anyone.


> > Many users
> > compile LyX without problems.
>
> That's relevent why?

That is supposed to give you the confidence to feel that, if you
understood what was going on in the build process, you would succeed.
If you pay attention to the advice people give you, you can make it
work.

-- 
Paul E. Johnson
Professor, Political Science
1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504
University of Kansas

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

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, but
> > that's just too much to expect from a user.
>
> No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
> numbers etc. 

Of course offense was intended. A typo, or even a series of like typos, does 
not confusion make.

> I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README 
> and INSTALL that come with the source. 

Quite a leap of logic.

> As an end-user, either you wait 
> for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
> step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX. 

That's exactly my point. When the step by step implies messing with the very 
vitals of your 1.5 year old OS, there's something very wrong with the step by 
step.

> Many users 
> compile LyX without problems.

That's relevent why?

SteveT

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[deedee]

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 11:38 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> My recollection is that Mandriva is an RPM based system that
> branched out of Mandrake, which began as a simple re-packaging
> of RedHat linux with "optimized" packages for i586 and i686. I
> see nothing in their pages to make me think I'm wrong.   Ignore
> the complaining about the build system, lets just find out what
> Mandriva has, and if it doesn't have the right thing, lets
> build RPMS for those things too.

I'm a Mandriva user and have been since it was Mandrake in 2002 
when I migrated to Linux. I don't know if I'm using the same 
release as Steve. Mandriva automatically keeps, when you update 
the distribution, whatever you need for what you're currently 
running. So if you need an older version of something like QT, it 
holds onto that if there is anything on your system still using 
it. 

The way I learned to get around having both the older and newer 
versions of the same software (because of course if there is 
something still using the older version, I don't want to break 
that either) is to install the newer version and make a note of 
where it is. Mandriva will put it in a different path, i.e., QT3 
goes in a path marked QT3 (probably the full release name) and 
QT4 will go in a path marked QT4. 

If the software I want to compile from source doesn't find the 
right path on its own, I look in the configure file to see where 
it is looking (assuming it doesn't automatically ask when it 
can't find something, which some software does). Usually a 
symbolic link is sufficient.

As a precaution, I make a backup of the software I'm going to 
upgrade so that I can get back to it in case something goes wrong 
and to be sure I'm keeping my configurations. I then remove the 
older software, e.g., LyX, completely from the system before I 
compile the latest version. It is particularly important to 
remove the current installed version, if it was installed from an 
rpm. Mandriva does some things unique to its distributions (which 
I believe is true of all distros) and the rpms reflect that -- so 
when compiling an upgrade from source, that stuff has to be 
removed to be sure everything compiles correctly. 

Once the later version is compiled and running, I check to see if 
the new profile file looks like the old one and then add back my 
customizations, depending on what I find. 

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 kernel. But I believe that's true of all 
distributions.

Sorry for the nontechnical language, but I'm just an end user.

HTH,
deedee

-- 
Registered Linux User #327485
Personal site, http://www.dianahkirk.com
The Writer's Place, http://www.thewritersplace.com
The Write Stop, http://www.writestop.com
WordStar Users Group, http://www.wordstar2.com

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:59:04PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> Thanks very much Paul,
> 
> I have no time today, but tomorrow or the next day I'll delete the LyX source 
> tree, re-extract the tarball, and try again now that libqt4-devel is 
> installed.
> 
> One thing I cannot do is upgrade from Qt-4.1.4 to Qt-4.2.3. I'm concerned 
> about the stability of my system as a whole if I were to try that and fail.

When you compile Qt from source and do not install it, your system will
not notice at all.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:38:31PM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Oh, please.  The suspense is killing me.  Did Steve succeed in
> building the LyX he wants?
> 
> If not, lets help him do it.  The troubles that were posted early on
> were common errors in configure/make stages of building software.

I am almost sure he has uic3 generated files in his source tree.
A clean tree should succeed immediately.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

Thanks very much Paul,

I have no time today, but tomorrow or the next day I'll delete the LyX source 
tree, re-extract the tarball, and try again now that libqt4-devel is 
installed.

One thing I cannot do is upgrade from Qt-4.1.4 to Qt-4.2.3. I'm concerned 
about the stability of my system as a whole if I were to try that and fail.

Thanks

SteveT

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 01:22, Paul Johnson 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 ago on Scientific Linux and I
> ended up setting QTDIR and QTHOME in the environment.  That fixed it.
>
> Also, you should only have the devel package for one version of QT at
> a time.  So after putting in the qt4 devel thing, make sure  you have
> no qt3 devel stuff left.
>
> pj
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 3:39 PM, Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Well, after 2 hours I got libqt4-devel loaded, and a 30 minute make ended
> > like this:
> >
> > make  all-recursive
> > make[6]: Entering directory
> > `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4' Making all in ui
> > make[7]: Entering directory
> > `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui' /usr/lib/qt3//bin/uic
> > -tr lyx::qt_ AboutUi.ui -o AboutUi.h
> > uic: File generated with too recent version of Qt Designer (4.0 vs.
> > 3.3.6) make[7]: *** [AboutUi.h] Error 1
> > make[7]: Leaving directory
> > `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui' make[6]: ***
> > [all-recursive] Error 1
> > make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> > make[5]: *** [all] Error 2
> > make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> > make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> > make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
> > make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> > make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> > make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
> > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> > make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lyx-1.5.3]$
> >
> > Back when we had xforms as an option, I could easily compile LyX. OK yeah
> > it wasn't as pretty as QT, but it worked and got the job done, and at
> > least I could use a LyX newer and more featureful than my Linux distro.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > SteveT
> >
> > Steve Litt
> > Books written in LyX:
> > Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
> > Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
> > Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Paul Johnson]

Oh, please.  The suspense is killing me.  Did Steve succeed in
building the LyX he wants?

If not, lets help him do it.  The troubles that were posted early on
were common errors in configure/make stages of building software.

My recollection is that Mandriva is an RPM based system that branched
out of Mandrake, which began as a simple re-packaging of RedHat linux
with "optimized" packages for i586 and i686. I see nothing in their
pages to make me think I'm wrong.   Ignore the complaining about the
build system, lets just find out what Mandriva has, and if it doesn't
have the right thing, lets build RPMS for those things too.  Hell, we
could even build a new gcc if we have to.


I am confident I can build LyX if the devel package for QT4 is
installed and the devel package for QT3 is not installed.  I believe
getting this to work will probably require some environment settings
for QT related things and I notice the settings that QT4 looks for are
different than the ones that QT3 looks for.

I am confident I can do this because I built LyX for Scientific Linux
5 a few weeks ago, and that is an old distribution (compared to Fedora
9, anyway).  The "new" Scientific Linux is built on Fedora from about
18 months ago.

I'm willing to prove myself wrong:

If anybody has a Mandriva system of the right vintage, create an
account for me that has ssh privileges and email me a password.  I can
build RPMS, and then make them available for everybody.  The owner may
need to install some devel tools, but when I'm done, that account
where I'll build everything can be erased and no lasting damage will
be done.

PJ

-- 
Paul E. Johnson
Professor, Political Science
1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504
University of Kansas

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:22:38AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
> > numbers etc. I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README
> > and INSTALL that come with the source. As an end-user, either you wait
> > for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
> > step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX. Many users
> > compile LyX without problems.
> 
> Abdel, I think you miss the point that some people do not want to
> update their distro, but want to update LyX nevertheless. And many of
> these people are faithful LyX users, too.

And that's possible. Fairly easily even. And in case something goes
wrong one might even get help, but that's usually more readily obtained
when the cry for help is not wrapped inside what can be considered a
complaint.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:54:26AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> erm, this is the second time you mention qt 2.x.y, i previsouly
> thought its just typo and i wonder - on my distro there are only qt
> 3.3.8 and qt 4.3.2 available.  you really mean 'upgrade to 2.2.3' ? -
> this seems to be some message ten years back :)

According to the other contents of the mail living in the past decade
might indeed be a possible explanation for the experienced oddities...

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 07:41:49PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> Then there's the fact that some of us have dialup, and some in rural
> areas are years from getting broadband. The "just upgrade your qt"
> suggestion could be a day's downloading over a phone line that could
> go down any time.

I've been working on LyX over a 56k modem line until about a year ago.
And yes, this involved packages (prebuild and source) from the outside.

Contrary to popular belief a modem is not the only way to transfer
data. There are e.g. those silvery beer coasters that can be used
to transfer 700MB (or even 4GB nowadays) across a whole continent 
within two days by snail mail...

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:27:28PM -0800, 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.

Surely Qt ate your outgoing mail.

There's no way that this could be case of PEBKAC.

Earth is flat, pigs can fly. 

> 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 that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack (12)
> then I may give it a try again. 

Funny, chosing a do-it-yourself distro and not being able to compile a
single package does not go well together in my opinion. But then, I am
known for having strange opinions...

I am sure in the next mail I'll read today someone will complain aboit
not being able to find a C++ compiler for his Commodore 64 and require
us to re-write LyX in 6502 assembler.

> There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that
> compels them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are
> not widely available. Qt 4 is the most notable of these attractive
> nuisances. True, I can install a Kubuntu 4 partition and get KDE 4
> which uses Qt4. But Koffice and a host of other things don't work with
> KDE 4. Besides, I don't like Debian. 

Qt 4 works on Kubuntu _without_ KDE 4. And it has been out there for more
than two years. In fact it works even on Slackware 12, at least that's
what a quick search with google makes me believe.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> UIC=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic ./configure --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4 
> --with-qt4-dir=/usr/lib/qt4 --with-qt4-includes=/usr/lib/qt4/include 
> --with-qt4-libraries=/usr/lib/qt4/lib

There's btw no reason to actuall _install_ Qt, running it from compiled
sources suffices. [./configure -prefix `pwd` helps]
 
> And it errors out like this:
> 
> deps/Dialogs.Tpo -c Dialogs.cpp -o Dialogs.o QAbout.h:24: error: ‘Ui’
> has not been declared QAbout.h:24: error: expected `{' before
> ‘QAboutUi’ QAbout.h:24: error: invalid function declaration make[7]:
> *** [Dialogs.lo] Error 1 make[7]: Leaving directory
> `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4' make[6]: ***
> [all-recursive] Error 1 make[6]: Leaving directory
> `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4' make[5]: *** [all]
> Error 2 make[5]: Leaving directory
> `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4' make[4]: ***
> [all-recursive] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory
> `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends' make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory
> `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]:
> Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src' make: ***
> [all-recursive] Error 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] lyx-1.5.3]$
> 
> I tried to install qt 2.4.3, but it would have involved messing with
> my entire distribution, which is too much risk to take.

It would have been too old as well.

> It shouldn't be this difficult to compile LyX. It wasn't this
> difficult a couple years ago.

There were several years were certain versions of automake were
required. Not everything was golden in the 1920's...

> Perhaps the features of the latest and greatest QT shouldn't be used
> so early, so that those of us with a year old distro can compile it
> without putting our entire distro's QT on the block.

I am on the fringe of getting upset. If you insist on using an old
distribution, use the version of LyX bundled with it or learn how cope
with the 'problems' you face otherwise. I guess you still have ui_*.h 
files generated files hanging around. Try with a fresh checkout, and
./configure properly. I bet it will compile out-of-the-box.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:38:49PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2008 17:07, Rich Shepard wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > > To answer your Subject line:
> > >
> > > xforms has not been maintained in around four years.
> >
> >And, it was plain ugly. :-)
> 
> Better ugly than uncompileable.

The versions of LyX that have been compilable with xforms still are.

Nobody forces you to upgrade.

If you want to upgrade you can either take what you get, or change it to
according to your needs, or provide sufficient incentive for someone
else to do so.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Micha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> He wants a nice new Ferrari and still fuel it with leaded fuel, it
> doesn't work that way.

It is just a matter of having a program that works well and where
issues get fixed. If today somebody comes and ask for a bugfix to LyX
1.37, I do not think it would be met with enthusiasm.

Not everybody is excited about Ferraris ;)

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Micha]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:22:38 +0100
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
> > numbers etc. I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README
> > and INSTALL that come with the source. As an end-user, either you wait
> > for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
> > step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX. Many users
> > compile LyX without problems.
> 
> Abdel, I think you miss the point that some people do not want to
> update their distro, but want to update LyX nevertheless. And many of
> these people are faithful LyX users, too.
> 

And if users want to do such stuff, they should be willing to handle
non-standard ways of installing things and not expect the developers to work
much harder and give up on a lot of features that users that do keep up with
modern libraries want.

He wants a nice new Ferrari and still fuel it with leaded fuel, it doesn't work
that way.

> JMarc
> 

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


In the case of Steve, his problem was clearly something he could have
resolved by himself without questioning our choice of development
tool. 


Well, anybody can at least question our choices. This does not mean
that we shall not stand by them, but at least take the criticism
calmly.


Oh but I am calm :-)

My point is that this is a development question, not an end-user 
question. This subject has already been discussed to death (literally 
:-) in the devel list so no need to bring back this subject on the user 
list.


Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>> But now I want to upgrade LyX without installing a newer operating system.
>> I don't think that's too much to ask.
>> 
> Lyx 1.5.3 is in the repository main/testing current of Mandriva. 

This is for people using Mandriva 2008. Some people use older
versions...

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> In the case of Steve, his problem was clearly something he could have
> resolved by himself without questioning our choice of development
> tool. 

Well, anybody can at least question our choices. This does not mean
that we shall not stand by them, but at least take the criticism
calmly.

> But I am sure Steve will notice the many nice UI improvements
> brought but our choice of Qt and will withdraw his criticism :-)

Time will tell.

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[cmiramon]

> But now I want to upgrade LyX without installing a newer operating system.
> I don't think that's too much to ask.
> 

According to this :
http://sophie.zarb.org/rpmfind?mversion=community&mversion=cooker&mversion=current&search=lyx&st=rpmname&submit=Soumettre&qcount=20

Lyx 1.5.3 is in the repository main/testing current of Mandriva. 

I guess you have to unable the correct repository and update urpmi and then
urpmi install lyx

If you want to be on the safe side, wait the release of the 2008 Mandriva,
then wait 2 months for bugs to be ironed off and then upgrade and stick
with the ugly old LyX.

Cheers,
Charles 

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
numbers etc. I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README
and INSTALL that come with the source. As an end-user, either you wait
for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX. Many users
compile LyX without problems.


Abdel, I think you miss the point that some people do not want to
update their distro, but want to update LyX nevertheless. And many of
these people are faithful LyX users, too.


No, I understand that. What I meant is that compiling software is not 
something an end user can do without documenting himself a bit. It's not 
that hard.
In the case of Steve, his problem was clearly something he could have 
resolved by himself without questioning our choice of development tool. 
But I am sure Steve will notice the many nice UI improvements brought 
but our choice of Qt and will withdraw his criticism :-)


Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version
> numbers etc. I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README
> and INSTALL that come with the source. As an end-user, either you wait
> for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required
> step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX. Many users
> compile LyX without problems.

Abdel, I think you miss the point that some people do not want to
update their distro, but want to update LyX nevertheless. And many of
these people are faithful LyX users, too.

JMarc

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:

On Feb 19, 2008 4:07 PM, Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

JOHN CULLETON wrote:

on recommending Lyx to TEX newbies. If someone can cite a version of
Lyx that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack
(12) then I may give it a try again.


1.3.7?


As Charles pointed out, you can already have the latest stable LyX on 
Slackware 12:


http://slackbuilds.org/repository/12.0/office/lyx_qt4/

I am sure the same could be said for Mandriva Steve, you just need to 
google a bit.


Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Feb 19, 2008 4:07 PM, Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JOHN CULLETON wrote:
> > on recommending Lyx to TEX newbies. If someone can cite a version of
> > Lyx that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack
> > (12) then I may give it a try again.

1.3.7?

Being able to update lyx2lyx at the click of a button would be handy though.

> > There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that
> > compels them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are
> > not widely available.
>
> Please stop this non sense.
>
> > Qt 4 is the most notable of these attractive
> > nuisances. True, I can install a Kubuntu 4 partition and get KDE 4
> > which uses Qt4. But Koffice and a host of other things don't work
> > with KDE 4. Besides, I don't like Debian.
>
> Back in the days I was using Slackware, I used to compile everything. If
> you are not able to compile Qt and LyX, pay someone to do it for you and
> stop complaining about people developing those programs for *FREE*.

Better yet, write a program that lets people compile arbitrary
programs at the click of button. See ebuild, sinstall and gconfigure
for a starting point.
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_prefixed_portage_(in_development)

> > John Culleton TeX since 1995.
>
> Just stay with TeX and stop annoying us.

He can't. He's been infected with a virus ;)

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted
PhD Student
University of Western Australia

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

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
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 that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack
(12) then I may give it a try again.

There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that
compels them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are
not widely available.


Please stop this non sense.


Qt 4 is the most notable of these attractive
nuisances. True, I can install a Kubuntu 4 partition and get KDE 4
which uses Qt4. But Koffice and a host of other things don't work
with KDE 4. Besides, I don't like Debian.


Back in the days I was using Slackware, I used to compile everything. If 
you are not able to compile Qt and LyX, pay someone to do it for you and 
stop complaining about people developing those programs for *FREE*.





I am writing this via my online mailbox attached to my webpage. Trust
me it is a helluva way to do my daily work.

John Culleton TeX since 1995.


Just stay with TeX and stop annoying us.

Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Monday 18 February 2008 18:01, Pavel Sanda wrote:


It shouldn't be this difficult to compile LyX. It wasn't this difficult a
couple years ago.

actually this should be the job of your distro maintainers, not lyx.


I've been hearing a lot of that type of comment lately, and I think it's dead 
wrong.


My distro maintainers did a tremendous job of compiling a great LyX 1.4.2. 
Works every time, never crashes.


But now I want to upgrade LyX without installing a newer operating system. I 
don't think that's too much to ask.


One could counter that if I used Debian I could just apt-get install the whole 
thing. Well I don't use Debian -- I like Mandriva and have been using it 
since 2000, and I would certainly like to see developers not place stumbling 
blocks of specific versions and subversions of tools. 

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, but that's just 
too much to expect from a user.


No offense intended Steve but you are obviously confused with version 
numbers etc. I even suspect that you didn't even fully read the README 
and INSTALL that come with the source. As an end-user, either you wait 
for your distro to come with a binary package or you do the required 
step by step things you need to do in order to compile LyX. Many users 
compile LyX without problems.




Then there's the fact that some of us have dialup, and some in rural areas are 
years from getting broadband. The "just upgrade your qt" suggestion could be 
a day's downloading over a phone line that could go down any time.


Most of the free software I've written has been in Perl or Ruby or Vim, but 
I've always tried very hard to have it installable on almost anything.


Man, we're talking about a full blown C++ word processor here... I 
personally find your attitude a bit insulting towards the people who 
develop LyX.


Abdel.

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Paul Johnson]

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 ago on Scientific Linux and I
ended up setting QTDIR and QTHOME in the environment.  That fixed it.

Also, you should only have the devel package for one version of QT at
a time.  So after putting in the qt4 devel thing, make sure  you have
no qt3 devel stuff left.

pj

On Feb 18, 2008 3:39 PM, Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Well, after 2 hours I got libqt4-devel loaded, and a 30 minute make ended like
> this:
>
> make  all-recursive
> make[6]: Entering directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> Making all in ui
> make[7]: Entering directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
> /usr/lib/qt3//bin/uic -tr lyx::qt_ AboutUi.ui -o AboutUi.h
> uic: File generated with too recent version of Qt Designer (4.0 vs. 3.3.6)
> make[7]: *** [AboutUi.h] Error 1
> make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
> make[6]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> make[5]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lyx-1.5.3]$
>
> Back when we had xforms as an option, I could easily compile LyX. OK yeah it
> wasn't as pretty as QT, but it worked and got the job done, and at least I
> could use a LyX newer and more featureful than my Linux distro.
>
> Thanks
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> Books written in LyX:
> Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
> Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
> Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
>



-- 
Paul E. Johnson
Professor, Political Science
1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504
University of Kansas

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Monday 18 February 2008 19:54, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > But now I want to upgrade LyX without installing a newer operating
> > system. I don't think that's too much to ask.
> >
> > One could counter that if I used Debian I could just apt-get install the
> > whole thing. Well I don't use Debian -- I like Mandriva and have been
> > using it since 2000, and I would certainly like to see developers not
> > place stumbling blocks of specific versions and subversions of tools.
>
> i dont see why debian or fedora are able to have 1.5 series in their tree
> and mandriva not.
>
> > 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, but
> > that's just too much to expect from a user.
>
> erm, this is the second time you mention qt 2.x.y, i previsouly thought its
> just typo and i wonder - on my distro there are only qt 3.3.8 and qt 4.3.2
> available. you really mean 'upgrade to 2.2.3' ? - this seems to be some
> message ten years back :)

Yeah, I meant 4.2.3.

SteveT

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Pavel Sanda]

> But now I want to upgrade LyX without installing a newer operating system. I 
> don't think that's too much to ask.
> 
> One could counter that if I used Debian I could just apt-get install the 
> whole 
> thing. Well I don't use Debian -- I like Mandriva and have been using it 
> since 2000, and I would certainly like to see developers not place stumbling 
> blocks of specific versions and subversions of tools. 

i dont see why debian or fedora are able to have 1.5 series in their tree
and mandriva not.

> 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, but that's just 
> too much to expect from a user.

erm, this is the second time you mention qt 2.x.y, i previsouly thought its 
just 
typo and i wonder - on my distro there are only qt 3.3.8 and qt 4.3.2 available.
you really mean 'upgrade to 2.2.3' ? - this seems to be some message ten years 
back :)

pavel

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Pavel Sanda]

> On Monday 18 February 2008 18:26, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > > --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4 but change the path accordingly.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you mean.
> >
> > where do you have libraries of qt4 now ?
> 
> Depending on the meaning of the question, either /usr/lib/qt4 
> or /usr/lib/qt4/lib.

sorry i was confused by your sentence "I tried to install qt 2.4.3, but it
would have involved messing with my entire distribution, which is too much risk
to take." and thought you have not qt4 in /usr/lib.

back to your last err message - have you run configure on clean tree or have
you tried to reconfigure on the tree where has been done unsucesfull qt3 
compilation?

can you sent the result table of configure ?

pavel

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Monday 18 February 2008 18:01, Pavel Sanda wrote:

> > It shouldn't be this difficult to compile LyX. It wasn't this difficult a
> > couple years ago.
>
> actually this should be the job of your distro maintainers, not lyx.

I've been hearing a lot of that type of comment lately, and I think it's dead 
wrong.

My distro maintainers did a tremendous job of compiling a great LyX 1.4.2. 
Works every time, never crashes.

But now I want to upgrade LyX without installing a newer operating system. I 
don't think that's too much to ask.

One could counter that if I used Debian I could just apt-get install the whole 
thing. Well I don't use Debian -- I like Mandriva and have been using it 
since 2000, and I would certainly like to see developers not place stumbling 
blocks of specific versions and subversions of tools. 

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, but that's just 
too much to expect from a user.

Then there's the fact that some of us have dialup, and some in rural areas are 
years from getting broadband. The "just upgrade your qt" suggestion could be 
a day's downloading over a phone line that could go down any time.

Most of the free software I've written has been in Perl or Ruby or Vim, but 
I've always tried very hard to have it installable on almost anything.

SteveT

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Monday 18 February 2008 18:26, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4 but change the path accordingly.
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean.
>
> where do you have libraries of qt4 now ?

Depending on the meaning of the question, either /usr/lib/qt4 
or /usr/lib/qt4/lib.

SteveTTroubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[cmiramon]

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 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 that runs without tears
> on the latest stable version of Slack (12) then I ma


http://slackbuilds.org/repository/12.0/office/lyx_qt4/

I have managed to very easily build LyX 1.6svn last week on a Debian sid

Cheers,
Charles

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Richard heck]

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 reinstalled on a fresh partition but I still have problems. 


If so, then it wouldn't seem Qt4 (or any of these other things) are 
responsible. You're sure it's a completely fresh install?


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 that runs without tears on the latest stable version of Slack (12) then I may give it a try again. 

  
Installation on Ubuntu and Fedora, I can attest, are painless. That's 
probably because they have robust package management systems, which 
Slackware famously does not. That's not a flame. There are lots of 
different reasons to use different distros. But Qt4 has been out almost 
three years. If Slackware doesn't permit easy installation of the Qt4 
libraries, then, well, presumably you wouldn't recommend Slackware to 
newbies, either.


There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that compels them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are not widely available. Qt 4 is the most notable of these attractive nuisances. True, I can install a Kubuntu 4 partition and get KDE 4 which uses Qt4. 


Qt4 and KDE 4 are completely different animals. The only connection is 
that the latter uses the former.


rh

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Pavel Sanda]

>If someone can cite a version of Lyx that runs without tears on the latest 
>stable version of Slack (12) then I may give it a try again. 

i see some slackware package for 1.4.4 in wiki.

pavel

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[JOHN CULLETON]

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 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 that runs without tears on the latest stable 
version of Slack (12) then I may give it a try again. 

There seems to be a virus infecting developers all over the net that compels 
them to use the newest tools even though the newest tools are not widely 
available. Qt 4 is the most notable of these attractive nuisances. True, I can 
install a Kubuntu 4 partition and get KDE 4 which uses Qt4. But Koffice and a 
host of other things don't work with KDE 4. Besides, I don't like Debian. 

I am writing this via my online mailbox attached to my webpage. Trust me it is 
a helluva way to do my daily work. 

John Culleton
TeX since 1995. 



__
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
 http://www.doteasy.com

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Pavel Sanda]

> > --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4 but change the path accordingly.
> I don't understand what you mean.

where do you have libraries of qt4 now ?

pavel

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Monday 18 February 2008 18:01, Pavel Sanda wrote:

Hi Pavel,

> if you havent install it globally you cant use

I don't understand what you mean. What do I need to install globally to use 
it? How does one install it globally?

> --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4 but change the path accordingly.
I don't understand what you mean.

> whats you gcc version btw?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] qt4]$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i586-mandriva-linux-gnu
Configured 
with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --libexecdir=/usr/lib --with-slibdir=/lib 
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared 
--enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release 
--enable-languages=c,c++,ada,fortran,objc,obj-c++,java 
--host=i586-mandriva-linux-gnu --with-cpu=generic --with-system-zlib 
--enable-long-long --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu 
--disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-java-awt=gtk 
--with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-1.4.2.0/jre --enable-gtk-cairo 
--enable-ssp --disable-libssp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.1 20060724 (prerelease) (4.1.1-3mdk)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] qt4]

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Pavel Sanda]

> And it errors out like this:
> 
> deps/Dialogs.Tpo -c Dialogs.cpp -o Dialogs.o
> QAbout.h:24: error: ???Ui??? has not been declared
> QAbout.h:24: error: expected `{' before ???QAboutUi???
> QAbout.h:24: error: invalid function declaration
> make[7]: *** [Dialogs.lo] Error 1
> make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> make[6]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> make[5]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lyx-1.5.3]$
> 
> I tried to install qt 2.4.3, but it would have involved messing with my 
> entire 
> distribution, which is too much risk to take.

if you havent install it globally you cant use --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4 
but change the path accordingly.
whats you gcc version btw?
 
> It shouldn't be this difficult to compile LyX. It wasn't this difficult a 
> couple years ago.

actually this should be the job of your distro maintainers, not lyx.

> Perhaps the features of the latest and greatest QT 
> shouldn't be used so early, so that those of us with a year old distro can 
> compile it without putting our entire distro's QT on the block.

you dont need to reinstall qt. simply compile and install qt and lyx into some 
local directory (see --prefix parameteres for configure of qt and lyx)

pavel

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Monday 18 February 2008 16:58, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> To answer your Subject line:
>
> xforms has not been maintained in around four years.
>
> Qt4 gives more possibility to use on non-Unix and even non-X11 systems.
>
> Qt4 has better support for internationalization and many other user
> interface features. This lets LyX developers work on LyX specific
> features.
>
> > make[7]: Entering directory
> > `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
> > /usr/lib/qt3//bin/uic -tr lyx::qt_ AboutUi.ui -o AboutUi.h
> > uic: File generated with too recent version of Qt Designer (4.0 vs.
> > 3.3.6) make[7]: *** [AboutUi.h] Erro
>
> Even though you installed libqt4-devel, the above is using QT3.
>
> Run the ./configure --help to see if it has options for:
>
> --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4
> --with-qt4-dir=/usr/lib/qt4
> --with-qt4-includes=/usr/lib/qt4/include
> --with-qt4-libraries=/usr/lib/qt4/lib
>
> Adjust as needed.
>
> Also try running ./configure with UIC defined
> in the environment:
>
> UIC=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic ./configure

I ran this command:

 
UIC=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic ./configure --with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4 
--with-qt4-dir=/usr/lib/qt4 --with-qt4-includes=/usr/lib/qt4/include 
--with-qt4-libraries=/usr/lib/qt4/lib

And it errors out like this:

deps/Dialogs.Tpo -c Dialogs.cpp -o Dialogs.o
QAbout.h:24: error: ‘Ui’ has not been declared
QAbout.h:24: error: expected `{' before ‘QAboutUi’
QAbout.h:24: error: invalid function declaration
make[7]: *** [Dialogs.lo] Error 1
make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
make[6]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
make[5]: *** [all] Error 2
make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lyx-1.5.3]$

I tried to install qt 2.4.3, but it would have involved messing with my entire 
distribution, which is too much risk to take.

It shouldn't be this difficult to compile LyX. It wasn't this difficult a 
couple years ago. Perhaps the features of the latest and greatest QT 
shouldn't be used so early, so that those of us with a year old distro can 
compile it without putting our entire distro's QT on the block. Also, if/when 
this is solved, I'll write documentation to save the next poor soul from 
spending all day compiling it.

SteveT

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

On Monday 18 February 2008 17:07, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > To answer your Subject line:
> >
> > xforms has not been maintained in around four years.
>
>And, it was plain ugly. :-)

Better ugly than uncompileable.

SteveT

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:39:20PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Well, after 2 hours I got libqt4-devel loaded, and a 30 minute make ended 
> like 
> this:
> 
> make  all-recursive
> make[6]: Entering directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> Making all in ui
> make[7]: Entering directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
> /usr/lib/qt3//bin/uic -tr lyx::qt_ AboutUi.ui -o AboutUi.h

This is uic from Qt 3.

Do not use it to work with Qt 4.

> uic: File generated with too recent version of Qt Designer (4.0 vs. 3.3.6)
> make[7]: *** [AboutUi.h] Error 1
> make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
> make[6]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> make[5]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
> make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
> make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
> make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lyx-1.5.3]$
> 
> Back when we had xforms as an option, I could easily compile LyX. OK yeah it 
> wasn't as pretty as QT, but it worked and got the job done, and at least I 
> could use a LyX newer and more featureful than my Linux distro.

And it was a pain in the ass to maintain this 'GUI independence'. We had
about as much glue code than in the frontend itself.

Andre'

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> Qt4 has better support for internationalization and many other user
> interface features. This lets LyX developers work on LyX specific
> features.

most notably, it had no support for unicode. The important and overdue switch 
to unicode in 1.5 would not have been possible with xforms, unless we would 
have implemented unicode support in xforms itself, which noone really felt 
like an appealing task ;-)

Jürgen

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Rich Shepard]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:


To answer your Subject line:

xforms has not been maintained in around four years.


  And, it was plain ugly. :-)

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Jeremy C. Reed]

To answer your Subject line:

xforms has not been maintained in around four years.

Qt4 gives more possibility to use on non-Unix and even non-X11 systems.

Qt4 has better support for internationalization and many other user 
interface features. This lets LyX developers work on LyX specific 
features.

> make[7]: Entering directory 
> `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
> /usr/lib/qt3//bin/uic -tr lyx::qt_ AboutUi.ui -o AboutUi.h
> uic: File generated with too recent version of Qt Designer (4.0 vs. 3.3.6)
> make[7]: *** [AboutUi.h] Erro


Even though you installed libqt4-devel, the above is using QT3.

Run the ./configure --help to see if it has options for:

--with-extra-prefix=/usr/lib/qt4
--with-qt4-dir=/usr/lib/qt4
--with-qt4-includes=/usr/lib/qt4/include
--with-qt4-libraries=/usr/lib/qt4/lib

Adjust as needed.

Also try running ./configure with UIC defined
in the environment:

UIC=/usr/lib/qt4/bin/uic ./configure

Why oh why did you drop xforms?

[Steve Litt]

Hi all,

Well, after 2 hours I got libqt4-devel loaded, and a 30 minute make ended like 
this:

make  all-recursive
make[6]: Entering directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
Making all in ui
make[7]: Entering directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
/usr/lib/qt3//bin/uic -tr lyx::qt_ AboutUi.ui -o AboutUi.h
uic: File generated with too recent version of Qt Designer (4.0 vs. 3.3.6)
make[7]: *** [AboutUi.h] Error 1
make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4/ui'
make[6]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
make[5]: *** [all] Error 2
make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends/qt4'
make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src/frontends'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/slitt/junk/lyx-1.5.3/src'
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lyx-1.5.3]$

Back when we had xforms as an option, I could easily compile LyX. OK yeah it 
wasn't as pretty as QT, but it worked and got the job done, and at least I 
could use a LyX newer and more featureful than my Linux distro.

Thanks

SteveT

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts