On 05/14/2018 05:08 AM, Bernt Lie wrote: > A slight update on my indicated procedure in #2: I am, of course, no > developer and no computer scientist. So let me indicate some understanding > also for decisions made on things I don't understand. > > Suppose... updating MikTeX leads to the following: > * the latest MikTeX is not backwards compatible, i.e., documents that used to > work stop working -- that would be a pain for the guy who provides the > Windows installation, > * installing the latest MikTeX leads to wiping out currently installed > templates, etc. for journals, conferences, etc., so that these must be > reinstalled -- probably something that some people would find a pain, and > bitch about, > * installing the latest MikTeX has proved to be problematic for some versions > of Windows (e.g., some users tend to prefer Windows 7 and refuse to update to > Windows 10, etc., etc.). > > In summary: I understand some caution if the guy who provides the Windows > installation may come in a situation that makes many users "mad". That is > never a good situation. > > However, if there are no problems, for me it would be perfectly fine if the > installation procedure checked the current installation of MikTeX, and if I > didn't have the correct one installed, simply informed me: > > * "LyX v. 2.3.0 requires the latest installation of MikTeX. You have not > installed the latest version on your computer, and the installation is > therefore terminated. > > If you want to upgrade to LyX v. 2.3.0, please follow the procedure at > www..... and first upgrade MikTeX to the latest version. NOTE: if you choose > to upgrade MikTeX, and there are some problems with MikTeX on your computer, > you do this on your own responsibility." > > Or something to that effect...
As Scott more or less said about a different proposal, this goes way beyond the compromise that the other developers had proposed to Uwe. Our suggestion was simply to warn the user at the outset that MikTeX *would* be upgraded as part of the install, and to offer them the opportunity to cancel the install if they don't want the upgrade to happen. Uwe refused, and has refused again in the last couple days. His view is that this kind of warning will confuse some users and that those same users are at risk of having broken installations if we do not do the upgrade for them. So his view is that we should do the upgrade silently. I find it hard to understand this point of view, but that is what Uwe thinks, so we are at stalemate. I am working on building a Windows installer myself, but since I haven't used Windows in fifteen years or so, it's taking me a bit of time to get up to speed. I think I'm getting close, but I've been thinking that for a while..... Riki
