hyperref conflicts with cite package?

2009-04-28 Thread James C. Sutherland
If I turn on hyperref support, then the cite package breaks. Specifically, citations that would normally appear as [5-9] now appear as [5,6,7,8,9]. If I turn off hyperref then it works again. Is this a package conflict, or a bug in LyX? LyX 1.6.2, Mac OSX 10.5.6

Re: hyperref conflicts with cite package?

2009-04-28 Thread BH
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, James C. Sutherland james.sutherl...@utah.edu wrote: If I turn on hyperref support, then the cite package breaks.  Specifically, citations that would normally appear as [5-9] now appear as [5,6,7,8,9].  If I turn off hyperref then it works again. Is this a

hyperref conflicts with cite package?

2009-04-28 Thread James C. Sutherland
If I turn on hyperref support, then the cite package breaks. Specifically, citations that would normally appear as [5-9] now appear as [5,6,7,8,9]. If I turn off hyperref then it works again. Is this a package conflict, or a bug in LyX? LyX 1.6.2, Mac OSX 10.5.6

Re: hyperref conflicts with cite package?

2009-04-28 Thread BH
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, James C. Sutherland james.sutherl...@utah.edu wrote: If I turn on hyperref support, then the cite package breaks.  Specifically, citations that would normally appear as [5-9] now appear as [5,6,7,8,9].  If I turn off hyperref then it works again. Is this a

hyperref conflicts with cite package?

2009-04-28 Thread James C. Sutherland
If I turn on hyperref support, then the cite package breaks. Specifically, citations that would normally appear as [5-9] now appear as [5,6,7,8,9]. If I turn off hyperref then it works again. Is this a package conflict, or a bug in LyX? LyX 1.6.2, Mac OSX 10.5.6

Re: hyperref conflicts with cite package?

2009-04-28 Thread BH
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM, James C. Sutherland wrote: > If I turn on hyperref support, then the cite package breaks.  Specifically, > citations that would normally appear as [5-9] now appear as [5,6,7,8,9].  If > I turn off hyperref then it works again. > > Is