> please file bugs if you find other packages which try to access $HOME during
> the build process.
ok,I will do a bug report.
Cheers
Fred
Hi
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 09:09:45AM +, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> I know how to prevent this with the -userdir parameter of lyx, but I would
> like to now if this is not a bug in sbuild ?
> what is the expected behavious from sbuild when something try to create a
> co
Hi,
Quoting PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel (2016-02-28 10:09:45)
> I am preparing the next tango package, so I need to build the doc with lyx.
>
> But then I get this error message.
>
> make[5]: Entering directory '/<>/tango-9.2.0~a+dfsg/build/doc/src'
> cd ../../../d
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 09:09:45AM +, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> make[5]: Entering directory '/<>/tango-9.2.0~a+dfsg/build/doc/src'
> cd ../../../doc/src; /usr/bin/lyx --export pdf2 tango.lyx
> LyX: Creating directory /sbuild-nonexistent/.lyx/
> Failed
Hello,
I am preparing the next tango package, so I need to build the doc with lyx.
But then I get this error message.
make[5]: Entering directory '/<>/tango-9.2.0~a+dfsg/build/doc/src'
cd ../../../doc/src; /usr/bin/lyx --export pdf2 tango.lyx
LyX: Creating directory /sbuild-
citations in lyx document using zotero
library.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
belahcene wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I generate a debian package for the more recent lyx (1.6.4), I want to
> share it, how and where to upload it.
You should talk to the Debian lyx maintainers, which is as far as I remember a
team, so you could probably join it. Working on packages somewhe
n package for the more recent lyx (1.6.4), I want
> to share it, how and where to upload it.
>
> The file is generated for debian lenny (5.0) and can normally used
> on recent ubuntu .
>
>
> I am not a guru for creating debian package, so I need feed back.
> Thanks for t
Hi,
I generate a debian package for the more recent lyx (1.6.4), I want to
share it, how and where to upload it.
The file is generated for debian lenny (5.0) and can normally used on
recent ubuntu .
I am not a guru for creating debian package, so I need feed back. Thanks
for testing and
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sven Hoexter
* Package name: elyxer
Version : 0.22
Upstream Author : Alex Fernández
* URL : http://www.nongnu.org/elyxer/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Standalone LyX to HTML
Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And it's now been accepted by katie, thanks to Joshua Kwan.
Many thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 01:39:34PM +1000, Rob Weir said
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:19:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG said
> >
> > lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> > been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU po
Edward J. Shornock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>The source is at http://crumbs.ertius.org/~rob/debian/lyx/, feel free to
>>upload it if you think it's ok.
> Wouldn't it be better to have the build depends like this?
> Build-Depends:
Rob Weir wrote:
The source is at http://crumbs.ertius.org/~rob/debian/lyx/, feel free to
upload it if you think it's ok.
Wouldn't it be better to have the build depends like this?
Build-Depends: libqt3-mt-dev (>=3:3.3.5), xlibs-dev (>> 4.3.0)
Xorg is in both Sid and
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 08:05:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh said
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:19:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> >
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:11:05PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh said
> >From memory, lyx is a major mess that FTBFS with gcc4 in very horripilant
> ways, uses yada, and is otherwise NMU-unfriendly IMHO. But it has been some
> time since I tried to build it.
>
> It is al
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:52:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG said
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> &g
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:19:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG said
>
> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
> for such packages?
Please don't NMU it, I'm the main
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:09:23 18:11 -0300]:
> From memory, lyx is a major mess that FTBFS with gcc4 in very horripilant
> ways, uses yada, and is otherwise NMU-unfriendly IMHO. But it has been some
> time since I tried to build it.
The build
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:09:23 11:19 -0700]:
>
> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
> for such packages?
Hi Thomas,
AIUI, there are lyx packages
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:19:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> > been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
> > for such p
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:19:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
>> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
>> for such
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Blech. The current team hasn't responded to my emails, but my complaint
> is that it has bugs marked "pending upload" for nearly two weeks now.
I mark bugs as pending when I've committed the patch to fix the bug to the
package repository (in fact
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:19:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
> for such packages?
I understand that the maintainer (or most active uplo
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
>> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
>> for such pac
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
> been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
> for such packages?
At this point in time? Do it if you are up to it, and it can even be 0
lyx is one of the lingering packages that uses libqt3-mt but hasn't
been rebuilt with the new versions. What is the current NMU policy
for such packages?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 03:18:18PM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
> That allows it to live in contrib -- woopie. Until they have a non forms
> based
> GUI, it matters little.
But noone will ask for the removal of LyX anymore.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 03:18:18PM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
> > I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
> > state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
> > really needed as 'The law is quite clear that th
On 29-Jan-99 Michael Meskes wrote:
> I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
> state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
> really needed as 'The law is quite clear that the release of the software by
> th
I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
really needed as 'The law is quite clear that the release of the software by
the original authors and copyright holders changed the license
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by
> > > linking it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I
> > > include it (the source code) in a book as a programming example,
> > > and I GPL the whole book.
Philip Ha
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>Joseph Carter wrote:
>>>It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
>>>link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking
> > it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it
> > (the source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking
> it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it
> (the source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL the
> whole book.
>
> Will people be allowe
Raul,
A question for you:
Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking it
against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it (the
source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL the whole book.
Will people be allowed to copy and modify my c
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > similarly, i am tired of pointing out the errors in your
> > misinterpretation of the GPL.
>
> Er... could you at least back up your assertions with quotes from the
> GPL which support your position?
i have don
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 04:38:45PM +0100, mummert&[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I might be able to get a similar license agreement for KDE as the one I
> send for LyX. Would that be enough to get at least major parts of KDE back
> on the site? I have no idea how much we would have to kee
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> similarly, i am tired of pointing out the errors in your misinterpretation
> of the GPL.
Er... could you at least back up your assertions with quotes from the
GPL which support your position?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > there is no combined work until the source is compiled, linked to
> > the non-free library, and a binary produced.
>
> Please show me where the GPL says this.
>
> I'm tired of pointing out this is false, quoting
I might be able to get a similar license agreement for KDE as the one I
send for LyX. Would that be enough to get at least major parts of KDE back
on the site? I have no idea how much we would have to keep out. I know
kghostview and kdvi, but other than that? Since I use Gnome I cannot simply
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is no combined work until the source is compiled, linked to the
> non-free library, and a binary produced.
Please show me where the GPL says this.
I'm tired of pointing out this is false, quoting from the GPL to show
you were it says different, and
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 09:13:44AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:09:15PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > There's probably plenty of other problematic packages in contrib too,
> > as Raul has been telling us for a while. www-mysql, for example,
> > although it'll move in
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:09:15PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> There's probably plenty of other problematic packages in contrib too,
> as Raul has been telling us for a while. www-mysql, for example,
> although it'll move in to main once I reupload it (since mysql-base
> is in main now).
I idn'
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Shaya Potter wrote:
spotte>
spotte>-Original Message-
spotte>From: John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spotte>
spotte>> Lyx is currently in contrib.
spotte>> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
spotte>&
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in
> > any way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed
> > source code. You have the source, you can do what you want with
> > it
mail with the reply from the lyx list. This
reasoning seems to be perfectly okay. And lets us distribute lyx.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers!
Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire!
Mummert+Partner |
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any
> way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source
> code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is
> one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote:
> > The big problem is that KDE includes GPLed code without asking and
> > links it against qt. That is a not legal. I wonder what RMS would do
> > if they provide an kemacs. :-)
>
> I guess this is the part which I'm needing a bit more understanding
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:46:11PM -0700, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote:
> I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various efforts to
> port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows environments. Legally, this
> would
> imply stepping very carefully because who knows what proprietary
Geoffrey L. Brimhall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various
> efforts to port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows
> environments. Legally, this would imply stepping very carefully
> because who knows what proprietary libraries might be lin
> The big problem is that KDE includes GPLed code without asking and links it
> against qt. That is a not legal. I wonder what RMS would do if they provide
> an kemacs. :-)
I guess this is the part which I'm needing a bit more understanding with
(because I've not been the best at interpreting the
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:43:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx
> > project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too
> > much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx
> project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too
> much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it
> and opt to do t
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > Lyx is currently in contrib.
> > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> >linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in th
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 11:19:19AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Lyx does not go away just because there is a bug against it. When the bug
> is filed the maintainer has reasonable opportunity to fix it, or if not
> possible, to forward it upstream and let the upstream maintainers take
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:16:01PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> >There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> >permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> >be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
>>
>> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have no
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
>
> Boy, Mathias Ehtrich is going to think we have something against him. :)
So it was not only me who get the impression, reading between the lines.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brin
-Original Message-
From: John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Lyx is currently in contrib.
> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
>linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
>
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
> > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
> > their li
On 10-Oct-98 John Lapeyre wrote:
> one) The fltk author says that he is not working towards compatibility
> with forms.
> I can't get through to the site now to get the exact statement.
I remember that when I was going to port a xforms program I have so I could
upload it... I didn't want it
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:44:35PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Good, please let us know what you hear back. =>
Sure will.
> If I was able to imply it, the KDE people certainly would have. I don't
> want them to have any excuse for twisting words so they read what they want
> to read into them
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> > permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> > be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code t
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:52:21AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
> > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
> > their license. But like KDE, they
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
> > > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
> >
> > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code usi
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
> founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
I do and needless to say I have some problems with this person. Just check
his mail
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> > > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
&
Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
> > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
>
> It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
I know. But it may e
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
> > rather than the months that KDE got
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
>
> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
>
> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
> these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I r
Craig Sanders wrote:
> imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
> rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the
> request or choose not to change their license
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:35:19PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
> Lyx is currently in contrib.
> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> According to the GPL and our interpretation of i
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
> Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
wor
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Darren Benham wrote:
gecko>Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
I haven't tried. But I read the fltk docs on the subject last
week, and the upshot was that most large packages would take a good deal
of work to port. eg, there
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
On 10-Oct-98 Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote:
>
>> Lyx is currently in contrib.
>> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
>> linked against
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
cas>nope. sounds right to me (but i haven't looked at the licenses
cas>concerned, just going from memory of libxforms being no-source and
cas>non-free).
libforms is definitely no-source (so its not GPL'd !)
/us
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote:
> Lyx is currently in contrib.
> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
> statement
Lyx is currently in contrib.
Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least
On Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 03:56:39AM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
> I've made by the way a quick'n'dirty updated package of the current
> lyx-0.12.1pre8 which already contains this LaTeX importing feature.
> Seems to be working very well with the LaTeX files i tried out so
I've made by the way a quick'n'dirty updated package of the current
lyx-0.12.1pre8 which already contains this LaTeX importing feature.
Seems to be working very well with the LaTeX files i tried out so far:
ftp://ietpd1.sowi.uni-mainz.de/pub/debian/unofficial/{binary,source}
I
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:11:24PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
> They are preparing to release version 1.0 instead of another bugfix
> release 0.12.1 because LyX with all applied fixes has proven to be
> very stable and good enough. It will contain an import facility for
I see. And I
Is anything following the lyx development? It seems there hasn´t been a
development release for almost half a year. What's going on there?
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers!
Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I am just, out of my inherent curiosity, curious whether LyX still exists
> in the hamm distribution.
> This was the only available word processor that came with Debian.
> I know that it is technically a "pain in the ",
> and that anyone
On Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 04:32:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My package database lists LyX in the "obsolete" category - IMO
> this is a shame. If it has disappeared from debian, I believe something
> *needs* to come up soon to replace it.
There's LyX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I am just, out of my inherent curiosity, curious whether LyX still exists
in the hamm distribution.
This was the only available word processor that came with Debian.
I know that it is technically a "pain in the ",
and that anyone who can ty
I have an old version of LyX on my bo system that I know I loaded off the
official 1.3.1 CD. I wanted to get the source package for LyX off the hamm
directory on the ftp site but I can't find it. If fact LyX doesn't seem to
be listed in the packages file for hamm, slink, or even
Hello Stuart! :-)
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Stuart Lamble wrote:
> * Modula-3 (compiles into packages just fine with libc5; there are
> issues to deal with under libc6.)
Which Modula-3 did you make? Was it SRC or Cambridge or some other
implementation? :-)
Anyway, about glibc2 support, I jus
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Did anyone take over lyx? It seems as if we're close the release of a new
> stable version.
I took it over. I haven't done anything to it until now, because of the lack
of a libc6-based xforms (and you (IIRC) be
I just noticed that I uploaded lyx without finishing the postinst. If you
install 0.12pre6-0.1 it will delete your old system wide configuration file
without asking! Since this file is not usable with the new version this
won't be a big loss for most if not all of you. But in case you made
In a private email to me, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> Btw, I just see the note in the changelog that you dont have time to
> maintain lyx... i could take it over.
Well, that note was accurate at the time I wrote it. :-) I'm about to
start full-time work, so I should have more time
rg
> Subject: Re: Anyone working on new lyx version?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meskes) writes:
>
> > Did anyone take over lyx? It seems as if we're close the release of
> > a new stable version.
> >
> I've been making quick'n'dirty pa
Did anyone take over lyx? It seems as if we're close the release of a new
stable version.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager| topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 52146 Wuersel
Package: lyx
Version: 0.10.3-1
This package installs /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/lyx/ and all child directories with
permissions 750, which prevents lyx from being able to read its own config
files at startup.
My quick hack fix was to run
find /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/lyx -type d -exec chmod 755
Package: lyx
Version: 0.10.1-1
Package: lyx
Priority: optional
Section: tex
This should read
Section: contrib
as per section 3.1.3 of the policy manual (version 2.0.1.0), `Section
and Priority'
Ian.
Ian Jackson writes:
> Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on ly
x/copyright ? "):
> ...
> > This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
> >
> > Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> > a. allow distribution of
Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ? "):
...
> This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
>
> Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> a. allow distribution of no so
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copy
right ?"):
> ...
> > Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
> > distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
>
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
