headers
John Levon | 1 Jun 2004 02:44
Favicon

Re: When will the next LyX version be released?

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 11:56:11AM -0700, Jan Peters wrote:

> When will the next LyX version be released?
> 
> Is there a target date, or anything you tell me to hope
> for (like Christmas or so?).

There's no clear date.

(Personal opinion: xmas is hopeful)

john
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Ling Li | 1 Jun 2004 06:33
Picon
Favicon

`make install' broke on lyx2lyx_SCRIPTS

I am not sure the problem is due to automake 1.5 or src/lib/Makefile.am.

To reproduce the problem, go to src/lib/, and run
     make install-lyx2lyxSCRIPTS
which gives

     /bin/sh ../config/mkinstalldirs /usr/share/lyx/lyx2lyx
      /usr/bin/install -c lyx2lyx/lyx2lyx 
/usr/share/lyx/lyx2lyx/lyx2lyx/lyx2lyx
     /usr/bin/install: cannot stat 
`/usr/share/lyx/lyx2lyx/lyx2lyx/lyx2lyx': Not a directory
     make: *** [install-lyx2lyxSCRIPTS] Error 1

`make install-scriptsSCRIPTS' gives similar error.

The reason is that in the Makefile produced by automake 1.5, the 
transform from $p to $f doesn't remove the preceding directories. Thus 
double directory names appear:

install-lyx2lyxSCRIPTS: $(lyx2lyx_SCRIPTS)
	 <at> $(NORMAL_INSTALL)
	$(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(lyx2lyxdir)
	 <at> list='$(lyx2lyx_SCRIPTS)'; for p in $$list; do \
	  f="`echo $$p|sed '$(transform)'`"; \
	  if test -f $$p; then \
	    echo " $(INSTALL_SCRIPT) $$p $(DESTDIR)$(lyx2lyxdir)/$$f"; \
	    $(INSTALL_SCRIPT) $$p $(DESTDIR)$(lyx2lyxdir)/$$f; \
	  elif test -f $(srcdir)/$$p; then \
	    echo " $(INSTALL_SCRIPT) $(srcdir)/$$p $(DESTDIR)$(lyx2lyxdir)/$$f"; \
	    $(INSTALL_SCRIPT) $(srcdir)/$$p $(DESTDIR)$(lyx2lyxdir)/$$f; \
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Martin Vermeer | 1 Jun 2004 07:42
Picon
Picon

Re: When will the next LyX version be released?

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:44:44AM +0100, John Levon spake thusly:

> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 11:56:11AM -0700, Jan Peters wrote:
> 
> > When will the next LyX version be released?
> > 
> > Is there a target date, or anything you tell me to hope
> > for (like Christmas or so?).
> 
> There's no clear date.
> 
> (Personal opinion: xmas is hopeful)
> 
> john

Hmmm. Should someone in a position of authority formally declare a
(hard) feature freeze?

I know I'm guilty of not taking an interest in bug fixing but this
might help focus the mind. We really need to stabilise and get out
what we have now -- which is hugely enhanced over the previous stable
version.

- Martin
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Angus Leeming | 1 Jun 2004 09:38
Favicon

Re: Angus' fdesign -convert fix is buggy too....

Georg Baum wrote:

> Am Samstag, 29. Mai 2004 09:38 schrieb Duncan Simpson:
>> Also Angus put the terminator in too early---unless strncat
>> guarantees termination tje '\0' might get clobbered. A suggested
>> alternative, which
> 
> strncat puts the '\0' at the end as long as there is enough room. So
> if you call it with a limit that lets room for the '\0', then you
> can also write the '\0' before the call to strncat.

My thanks to you both. This stuff is back in the pending tray.

--

-- 
Angus
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lars Gullik Bjønnes | 1 Jun 2004 10:39

Re: CVS lyx automated build fails in "po" directory

"Kayvan A. Sylvan" <kayvan <at> sylvan.com> writes:

| On Linux, my automated build fails against the latest CVS:
>
| make[1]: Entering directory `/home/kayvan/src/lyx/po'
| LC_ALL=C ; export LC_ALL ; \
| rm -f POTFILES.in-t \
| && ( cd ..; \
|      grep -l "_(\".*\")" `find src -regex ".*\\.\\(C\\|c\\|h\\|C\\.in\\)" -print
| ` |\
|      sed -e '/xforms.forms/d' | grep -v -e "src/support/path_defines.C\ |\
|      sort | uniq ) > POTFILES.in-t \
| && mv POTFILES.in-t POTFILES.in
| /bin/sh: unexpected EOF while looking for `"'

I have checked in a patch for that.

--

-- 
	Lgb
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lars Gullik Bjønnes | 1 Jun 2004 11:11

Re: When will the next LyX version be released?

Martin Vermeer <martin.vermeer <at> hut.fi> writes:

| On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:44:44AM +0100, John Levon spake thusly:
|  
>> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 11:56:11AM -0700, Jan Peters wrote:
>> 
>> > When will the next LyX version be released?
>> > 
>> > Is there a target date, or anything you tell me to hope
>> > for (like Christmas or so?).
>> 
>> There's no clear date.
>> 
>> (Personal opinion: xmas is hopeful)
>> 
>> john
>
| Hmmm. Should someone in a position of authority formally declare a
| (hard) feature freeze?

Consider that done.

We should from now on _only_ focus on bug fixes and getting cvs lyx to
work as well as 1.3.x.

--

-- 
	Lgb
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lars Gullik Bjønnes | 1 Jun 2004 11:14

Re: boost/cstdint.hpp:121: error

John Levon <levon <at> movementarian.org> writes:

| On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 11:00:13AM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
>
>> My make of up-to-date LyX-CVS ends with:
>
| Me too (well, something similar) gcc 3.5.0cvs

I don't get either.

g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 3.3.2 20031022 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.2-1)

g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 3.5.0 20040524 (experimental)

--

-- 
	Lgb
Permalink | Reply | 26 comments |
headers
Lars Gullik Bjønnes | 1 Jun 2004 11:15

Re: `make install' broke on lyx2lyx_SCRIPTS

Ling Li <ling <at> caltech.edu> writes:

| Is this a problem of automake 1.5? Currently I don't have other
| versions to test.

Possibly.

I am using 1.7 and 1.8

--

-- 
	Lgb
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes | 1 Jun 2004 11:25
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: When will the next LyX version be released?

>>>>> "John" == John Levon <levon <at> movementarian.org> writes:

John> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 11:56:11AM -0700, Jan Peters wrote:
>> When will the next LyX version be released?
>> 
>> Is there a target date, or anything you tell me to hope for (like
>> Christmas or so?).

John> There's no clear date.

John> (Personal opinion: xmas is hopeful)

Note that there will be at least one 1.3.x version until then.

JMarc
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Angus Leeming | 1 Jun 2004 11:41
Favicon

Re: Angus' fdesign -convert fix is buggy too....

Duncan Simpson wrote:
>> Actually, once you've got your head around the fact that nobody is
>> there to hold your hand, it isn't too bad. The attached trial
>> program has been tested and is always safe. I'm going to commit
>> this to XForms cvs.
>>
> 
> Unfrotunately Angus' fix is buggy too, because at least on some
> systems size_t is unsigned (linux being a prime example). If so and
> fname_size>fname_capacity then the last strncat gets a huge limit
> (more than INT_MAX) and the buffer overflow will works anyway. Also
> it could be attacked by integer overflow, albeit not on most
> systems.
> 
> Also Angus put the terminator in too early---unless strncat
> guarantees termination tje '\0' might get clobbered. A suggested
> alternative, which returns 1 if everything is OK and 0 if fname is
> too small, if attached. main has been changed to reflect this
> change, without which people could use overflows to get unexpected
> filenames.

I think I was safe here. Nonetheless, your point about complex code
being difficult to debug is entirely valid...

> I have replaced most of the str* functions with snprintf, which
> makes the code *much* simpler. You could simplify it even more if
> you assumed everyone's snprintf followed C99.

...so I have adopted your replacement, fixing it to work for my needs.
See attached trial2.c and patch against XForms cvs.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane