Guenter Milde wrote: > 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.
It used to be generated, it is not generated anymore. You can simply edit it in LyX. > (Both requirements should be documented in Development.lyx) I'll add a note about LaTeXConfig.lyx. I don't think we should start with Makefile.am, if we do this we'll have to write a lot of stuff, e.g. what to do when adding a new .cpp file etc. >> - 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)? I'll send a suggestion as well (tomorrow). IMO the procedure for changing existing layout files or modules is fine and should be kept: We have a mechanism to do changes in branch in a safe way, and in contrast to adding a new document class we can do meaningful stuff in lyx2lyx when adding/removing a new new style in an exiting layout file or module. Georg
