On 2016-03-31, Georg Baum wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> For a safe "last minute commit", it would be good if somone could check
>> the code itself, and the notes in the updated template and example file
>> and then give an explicit +1 or not.
> I did not test anything, but I looked at the code and the notes. They are
> all OK. The following is missing:
> - An entry in lib/Makefile.am, so that lib/layouts/aastex6.layout actually
> gets installed
This is easy:
diff --git a/lib/Makefile.am b/lib/Makefile.am
index 80463f4..cdad5cd 100644
--- a/lib/Makefile.am
+++ b/lib/Makefile.am
@@ -1966,6 +1966,7 @@ dist_layouts_DATA =\
layouts/aapaper.inc \
layouts/aapaper.layout \
layouts/aastex.layout \
+ layouts/aastex6.layout \
layouts/achemso.layout \
layouts/acm-sigs.layout \
layouts/acm-sigs-alt.layout \
> - An entry in lib/doc/LaTeXConfig.lyx for aastex6.cls
This is tricky, because LaTeXConfig.lyx is a generated file. The addition
needs to be done at some other place.
(Both requirements should be documented in Development.lyx)
> - A final decision whether new layout files require a file format change or
> not. So far it looks like we agree that no file format change is needed, but
> to be correct I'd like to see that documented in Development.lyx before we
> add new layout files without lyx2lyx.
Yes. Currently there is the passus:
2.2 When is an update of the .lyx file format number needed?
...
New style in any layout file or module shipped with LyX, or new shipped
layout file or module. These requirements are currently under discussion
and might change in the future.
So what would be the procedure to get this rule lifted (rsp. replaced by a
less restrictive procedure for adding/updating modules)?
> Please send a complete patch once the file format question is officially
> documented, and I'll give a +1 then for that one.
Thanks,
Günter
