On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Uwe Stöhr <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 30.03.2014 21:48, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: > > >>> You will always find a case when it can fail. if the user changes >>> something manually we will be >>> lost anyway. He might have deleted the uninstaller or removed LyX's >>> registry settings or whatever. >>> This is like when you have problems with you car and remove a cable from >>> the battery. The nowadays >>> wide-spread car diagnosis toll will then fail. >> >> >> It seems a very valid case that someone deletes the "C:\Program Files >> (x86)\LyX21" directory to >> uninstall a not working LyX expecting that he can install again. > > > OK, then the installer first needs to check if a previous LyX is in the > registry but its files are not there. This can be done. I will put that on > my to do list, see below. > >
This is not a scalable solution. For which files do you check ? Will you check whether the files are actually the same, or are modified (broken) ? Do you check all registry entries ? Just allow to install over a previous version. What is the problem ? If you really want, you can add a page to ask whether the user really wants to do that and give him the advice to uninstall first if LyX is really broken. >> It's like getting rid of the old broken car because you have problems with >> it, and the car salesmen >> tell you they cannot sell you a new one because you've bought a car >> before. > > > Indeed. Sometimes these kind of examples open eyes ;-). Huh... any hint on how we can keep your eyes open then ? > > We have discussed a lot the last days but I will not have the time to > implement that for LyX 2.1final. I will try to do that for 2.1.1. I have now > 2 points on my to do list: I count 3. > > - add a decision message box when the user tries to install over the same > sable release I'd rather like a page instead of an ugly, frightening, message box. But OK as a first step. > - implement that LyX can install if there are traces of a former > installation in the registry but the files were removed Just allow to reinstall, if the user decides so in the message box of point 1. > - don't change the MiKTeX setting about package installation when it is set > to "No" This is not important for now if this is all you do. In the future you should determine the current MikTeX's setting, if it is set to "Ask me" or "No", you should ask whether the user allows you to install packages, or not. Then, you can temporarily override MikTeX's setting, and reset it afterwards. Last, why don't you implement something that uses the MiKTeX sdk to install the packages ? It must be much faster. JMarc mentions this over and over again, but we're still stuck with a very slow install process due to MikTeX. > > Did I miss some thing? > Probably yes, but I expect you're not ready for more controversial feedback. Vincent
