On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:52:21AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:44:35PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Good, please let us know what you hear back. =
Sure will.
If I was able to imply it, the KDE people certainly would have. I don't
want them to have any excuse for twisting words so they read what they want
to read into them.
I
On 10-Oct-98 John Lapeyre wrote:
one) The fltk author says that he is not working towards compatibility
with forms.
I can't get through to the site now to get the exact statement.
I remember that when I was going to port a xforms program I have so I could
upload it... I didn't want it
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Joseph Carter wrote:
It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance
I've made by the way a quick'n'dirty updated package of the current
lyx-0.12.1pre8 which already contains this LaTeX importing feature.
Seems to be working very well with the LaTeX files i tried out so far:
ftp://ietpd1.sowi.uni-mainz.de/pub/debian/unofficial/{binary,source}
If you'd like
On Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 03:56:39AM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
I've made by the way a quick'n'dirty updated package of the current
lyx-0.12.1pre8 which already contains this LaTeX importing feature.
Seems to be working very well with the LaTeX files i tried out so far:
Good to hear
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:11:24PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
They are preparing to release version 1.0 instead of another bugfix
release 0.12.1 because LyX with all applied fixes has proven to be
very stable and good enough. It will contain an import facility for
I see. And I agree, it really
Is anything following the lyx development? It seems there hasn´t been a
development release for almost half a year. What's going on there?
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers!
Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I am just, out of my inherent curiosity, curious whether LyX still exists
in the hamm distribution.
This was the only available word processor that came with Debian.
I know that it is technically a pain in the CENSORED FOR YOUR SANITY,
and that anyone
On Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 04:32:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My package database lists LyX in the obsolete category - IMO
this is a shame. If it has disappeared from debian, I believe something
*needs* to come up soon to replace it.
There's LyX and KLyX, a KDE version
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am just, out of my inherent curiosity, curious whether LyX still exists
in the hamm distribution.
This was the only available word processor that came with Debian.
I know that it is technically a pain in the CENSORED FOR YOUR SANITY,
and that anyone who can
I have an old version of LyX on my bo system that I know I loaded off the
official 1.3.1 CD. I wanted to get the source package for LyX off the hamm
directory on the ftp site but I can't find it. If fact LyX doesn't seem to
be listed in the packages file for hamm, slink, or even bo! What
Hello Stuart! :-)
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Stuart Lamble wrote:
* Modula-3 (compiles into packages just fine with libc5; there are
issues to deal with under libc6.)
Which Modula-3 did you make? Was it SRC or Cambridge or some other
implementation? :-)
Anyway, about glibc2 support, I just
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
Did anyone take over lyx? It seems as if we're close the release of a new
stable version.
I took it over. I haven't done anything to it until now, because of the lack
of a libc6-based xforms (and you (IIRC) beat me to it once
I just noticed that I uploaded lyx without finishing the postinst. If you
install 0.12pre6-0.1 it will delete your old system wide configuration file
without asking! Since this file is not usable with the new version this
won't be a big loss for most if not all of you. But in case you made some
In a private email to me, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
Btw, I just see the note in the changelog that you dont have time to
maintain lyx... i could take it over.
Well, that note was accurate at the time I wrote it. :-) I'm about to
start full-time work, so I should have more time to maintain Debian
Did anyone take over lyx? It seems as if we're close the release of a new
stable version.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager| topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 52146 Wuerselen
Go
: Re: Anyone working on new lyx version?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meskes) writes:
Did anyone take over lyx? It seems as if we're close the release of
a new stable version.
I've been making quick'n'dirty packages of the recent lyx-0.12.0preX
releases, but don't plan in any case to take
Package: lyx
Version: 0.10.3-1
This package installs /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/lyx/ and all child directories with
permissions 750, which prevents lyx from being able to read its own config
files at startup.
My quick hack fix was to run
find /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/lyx -type d -exec chmod 755
Package: lyx
Version: 0.10.1-1
Package: lyx
Priority: optional
Section: tex
This should read
Section: contrib
as per section 3.1.3 of the policy manual (version 2.0.1.0), `Section
and Priority'
Ian.
Ian Jackson wrote:
Dale Scheetz writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copy
right ?):
...
Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
distribution of source than pine does
Susan G. Kleinmann writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ? ):
...
This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
a. allow distribution of no source code
b. allow
Ian Jackson writes:
Susan G. Kleinmann writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on ly
x/copyright ? ):
...
This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
a. allow distribution of no source
Dale Scheetz writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?):
...
Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:
I think our consensus is that the non-free tree is for programs not freed by
teh copyright, while binary-only packages belong into contrib. Thus contrib
is the correct location.
Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?):
All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
be possible for anyone to distribute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?):
All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
be possible for anyone to distribute
Michael Meskes writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?):
...
Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able
to rebuild LyX.
You can't rebuild LyX entirely from source using only packages in the
main Debian distribution
Dale Scheetz writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?):
[...] xforms is improperly
located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is
not distributed). [...]
Sourceless packages are fine to distribute in contrib, so long as the
binaries
Dale Scheetz writes:
Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this
That's why there is no source available. :-)
source
Dale Scheetz writes:
That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif
since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms
package available.
Folks that buy my CD can too, but that's because xforms is improperly
located in contrib instead
Let's assume the packages that depend on Motif will eventually get better as
LessTif matures (by the way, someone should package LessTif _now_).
I don't have a problem with your proposal. Can counter-argument be directed
to me, please?
Thanks
Bruce
I think the you must rename the file if you change it restriction of the
LaTeX style sheet files is one that we _can_ live with. This should not
require them to go in contrib or non-free. Ian, I don't know how you'd
say this in the policy manual.
Thanks
Bruce
user be able to rebuild any package in the official
Debian distribution from the original source plus our patches.
Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able
to rebuild LyX.
[...]
All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable
compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a
^^^
Debian distribution.
That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif
since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms
package available.
Folks that buy my CD
IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able
to rebuild LyX.
But not from the original source plus our patches. That's the
crucial point.
That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif
since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms
package
Bruce, if you feel it is appropriate, I'd like you to use your magic
fiat power to end the discussion about lyx, contrib, and so forth, by
endorsing the appropriate part of the new policy manual. I've
attached a copy below.
According to that part lyx, all the Motif packages and the compress
All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and
their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as
201 - 240 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
