Angus Leeming wrote:
> Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
>
> Why is the Converter c-tor inline?
No idea. I've changed it. The same for Format.
> Do you need to #include "format.h" in
> converter.h? Can you not forward declare class Format?
Actually, this will force #including "format.h" in outside
> Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty
> trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)
This would be a very good idea indeed.
Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one
on the website is the latest one)
One thing
"Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
The licence
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
>
> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
> xforms. The
> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
as
> you put proper exclusion in the license.
>
> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
> (legal).
>
> Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on
bcc5.5
> that
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
>> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
>> as you put proper exclusion in the license.
>>
>> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
>> (legal).
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
> To be honest,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> > I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as
> > you put proper exclusion in the license.
> > I have done it several times with other
> the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.
so why not get it and fix the license?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > the licence, wouldn't it?
>
> No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
> license. Lyx has always had a big hole
Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Actually, this will force #including "format.h" in outside code which use
> the formats object, because the extern declaration of the global object
> formats is in it.
> I would leave this one as is for now, if it's ok with you. (I promess to
> do it soon)
>
I have
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
>> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
>> > right to distribute this? And what
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > > the licence, wouldn't it?
> > No. Permission was never obtained to switch
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > GPL? (probably not)
> > GPL with "may be linked to xforms"?
> > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
>
> It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> the law, and wrote the qualification to
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
> > It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> > the law, and wrote the qualification
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
My original writing came in response to the "critical bug" at debian
(license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of
Sorting through my old mail, I found this. It's John's patch that
uncorrected the license. Reversing this solves the problem, as neither
John nor anyone else had the legal standing to make this change.
This patch should be reversed. Note that QT/xforms is not the only
difference; the other
On Thursday 27 February 2003 16:39, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Alfredo" == Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alfredo> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> It seems that 1.3.1 is beginning to have enough fixes in to
> >> warrant a release. While there are no real show
> "Alfredo" == Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not sure anymore (this is a sign that things move too fast for
>> me...). Can you show the fix again?
Alfredo> This one:
OK, it seems that Angus applied it. What would be a good (short)
description of the bug it fixes?
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> OK, it seems that Angus applied it. What would be a good (short)
> description of the bug it fixes?
>
> JMarc
I think something like:
"Preview snippets are converted twice in (almost) all cases except from
startup."
And had maybe some other disgusting undetected
OK, I've dug them out; here is the context of the license.
Also note that it was Asger, not Lars, that committed the (correct)
license.
However, I was expecting one more round of editing when he did it--it's
missing a clause reserving future changes to lyx rather than the FSF
(would have become
Argh, I didn't include before sending.
Here are the old posts from my old mail, headers and all, with the
discussions from when we fixed the license. I'd forgotten just how much
more, uhh, perturbed John Weiss was about the High Church of Emacs than
I was :)
And it was Asger, not Lars, who
> "Alfredo" == Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alfredo> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> It seems that 1.3.1 is beginning to have enough fixes in to
>> warrant a release. While there are no real show stopper in 1.3.0
>> (which is a good thing), what we have now in 1.3.1cvs gives
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.
> so why not get it and fix the license?
Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some
LyX now has a proper label dialog. At least the xforms frontend does. The Qt
frontend doesn't have a label dialog at all anymore.
Before you jump down my throat, I attach the changes that I made to xforms.
Basically, I did nothing more than rename FormIndex.[Ch] as FormText.[Ch]
and
I'll be back on Tuesday to see how many things I've just broken.
Toodle pip.
--
Angus
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:59AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
>
> > I have set up an automated build (twice a day) for this branch.
> >
> > The output is in ftp://ftp.sylvan.com/pub/lyx/devel and the build
> > happens at 6AM and 6PM each day (PST).
>
> Hi, Sylvan.
Angus Leeming wrote:
> I'll be back on Tuesday to see how many things I've just broken.
> Toodle pip.
Have a good weekend
Alfredo
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
> impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early
> stuff).
For some of the early stuff it's not that interesting as certain pieces
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
> I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
> with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law
Hi
I want the lyx file format specification.
Does anyone know where can I find this complete specification?
Thanks in advance and best regards.
Boris
> >
> > That should be "Hi, Kayvan."
>
> I know that. Realy I do ;-) Please accept my apologies. Sometimes my brain
> doesn't function properly.
No problem. I now have qt builds auto-generated, though I don't really
know if they work for anyone. You can grab the 1.4cvs qt RPM and try it.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:22:05PM -0500, Kostas Oikonomou wrote:
> John, perhaps I'm being a bit slow about this, but since I don't have an
> anti-aliased Qt, what do I do to solve my problem?
I have no idea. Perhaps Dekel's patch to the maths symbols file was
broken ? Dekel ?
john
Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> A.P.Manners wrote:
>
> > Lyx 1.3.0 appears to be unbuildable on Solaris 2.6 because of boost.
> > Others seem to be reporting problems with boost on Solaris 2.6 although,
> > cursiously, not the same problems as I am experiencing. Is there a known
> > work around?
>
>
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:09:37PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > As John has noted, these differnet LFUNs are sufficiently similar to make
> > the thought of collapsing them together attractive.
> >
> > My question: should I use these switches or
Patch attached, without ChangeLog; therefore:
src/frontends/xforms/ChangeLog:
2003-02-28 Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* FormTabularCreate.C: remove slider settings (now part of .fd file) and add tooltips.
* forms/form_tabular_create.fd: prettify; add slider settings and proper gravity.
Patch attached, without ChangeLog; therefore:
src/frontends/xforms/ChangeLog:
2003-02-28 Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* FormTabularCreate.C: remove slider settings (now part of .fd file) and add tooltips.
* forms/form_tabular_create.fd: prettify; add slider settings and proper gravity.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I am clearly a brain dead zombie.
Surely, you meant muttonhead?
Allan. (ARRae)
Thank you, Angus. I succeed to compile xforms-i18n. But I cannot compile
CJK-LyX-1.3.0 with the flowing message,
In file included from ../../src/lyxtextclass.h:21,
from ../../src/bufferparams.h:23,
from ../../src/lyxrc.h:19,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:26:20PM +, A.P.Manners wrote:
> Unless someone knows otherwise (knows how to instruct boost to get
> around the missing header files in std) I would conclude that boost is
> preventing lyx from being built with gcc 2.95.2.
2.95.3 works fairly well under Linux,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:15:10PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> How about a map or array lookup instead?
Later. First move the code.
> > This can't go to the factory? This is it's purpose after all...
>
> Or how about auto-registration of insets with the factory -- probably
> a bit outlandish --
Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Attached is the result.
>
> Thanks,
> Alfredo
Do I have to wait until tuesday or there is another caritative soul that can
apply it?
Thanks, Alfredo
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> - don't cause a warning message to complain about starting an already
> running timer. Just don't start it ;-)
I've just remembered that there was another mini fix to forkedcontr.C we
cooked up with Angus that was applied to HEAD. I suspect that the bug was
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:40:09AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Do I have to wait until tuesday or there is another caritative soul that can
> apply it?
Send me the patch again.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve,
Vaclav,
Just had a further look, and I'm guessing that you're trying to get output
as in example 2 of instraut.ps, where the authors are one after the other,
followed by addresses? I have to admit, this isn't a format I've ever had
to use, so I didn't think of it.
As to the question, I don't
Hi
Sorry, I was wrong with my question.
I am looking for all the information related to the lyx "tags".
All the tags that lyx can handle.
Sorry for my last question and thanks again.
Boris
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:45:15 +0100
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:44:57PM +0100,
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
