Bo Peng wrote:
2.d) copy referenced files to [tmpdir]/filename.lyxdir/embed/
2.e) modify [tmpdir]/filenamedir.lyxdir/content.lyx
3-b) The reviewer ... This will create 'filename.lyx' directly extracted from
'content.lyx' in the archive as well as the 'filename.embed'
I can see that figure.png is copied to [tmpdir]/filename.lyxdir/embed,
to filename.embed/figure.png and so on during bundling and unbundling.
You also need to change .lyx file several times,
Only when bundling/unbundling actually. But you may note that, if
everything is already inside a self contained directory, the .lyx file
will _not_ change.
and 'merge' them when
you get it back. Other than your obsession to put them in a folder,
what are the real benefits? I am not talking about out of tree files,
just some figure.png in the same directory as filename.lyx.
The benefit is that the users sees that this file is referenced in the
.lyx file. If the user wants to bundle manually, he can just do it
easily. Besides, this is also about 'standardization' and KISS. I don't
think it is a big drawback to force the image to go in this subdirectory.
3-a) He only want to touch at the text contents.
This looks a lot like my bundle-editing mode, but how do you limit
users to 'touch at the text contents'?
We can disable the relevant LFUN if the file is globally set as
"bundled". There is exactly one boolean to take care of, similar to the
read-only flag.
Also, this will not happen without touching inset related code, which
will certainly displease Richard.
I don't think so. The inset code does not need to be touched, only the
LFUN status needs to check for this boolean flag, that's all.
I actually do not know how to handle so many proposals. Maybe I should
wait until you guys reach an agreement?
Eventually things will converge. I just outlined a possible scenario, I
am of course not saying this is the only one way to go :-)
Abdel.
