Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> (And for this I find signals more approp than LFUNS)
What about the patch I've sent (at the top of this thread)?
Alfredo
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:48:53PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:59:51AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > | Dependencies with the rest of LyX which I want to avoid.
> | > | (Not just "Lsstream.h" but "LString.h
"Kayvan A. Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I went ahead and installed gcc-2.96 on my old Redhat system (built
| from the source RPM) and all is well with the compiles again, except
| that I got the following build failure on the lyx-qt binary:
Is the qt lib also compiled with gcc-2.96?
--
I plan to commit soon the following series of patches to the 1.3.x
branch and port them to HEAD. I just send them for comments, but I do
not think they will cause big problems.
macboost.diff: avoid some template generation problems. This may be a
temporary solution that will be removed when gcc
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:30:47AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> lyx-qt.patch: the type1 fonts for symbols like sum. There is special
> code for some fonts in the normal version, and it seems that it has to
> be replaced with other special code for OS X (the win32 port seems to
> need
Dear list,
I forward this message from Ruurd Reitsma about whether we want to
allow a port of LyX to Qt/Win non commercial edition.
Some context: Ruurd would like us to distribute this port (the
binaries for now), but this is only possible if we change our license
to explicitly allow for linking
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:30:47AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
>> lyx-qt.patch: the type1 fonts for symbols like sum. There is
>> special code for some fonts in the normal version, and it seems
>> that it has to be rep
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I plan to commit soon the following series of patches to the 1.3.x
| branch and port them to HEAD. I just send them for comments, but I do
| not think they will cause big problems.
|
| macboost.diff: avoid some template generation problems. This
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I
Lars> plan to commit soon the following series of patches to the 1.3.x
Lars> | branch and port them to HEAD. I just send them for comments,
Lars> but I do | not think they wil
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I
| Lars> plan to commit soon the following series of patches to the 1.3.x
| Lars> | branch and port them to HEAD. I just
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> I think we should look harder at creating separate configure
Lars> scripts for the frontends...
Yes, this is one of the things that I'd like to do in chemnitz.
However, I am not sure how it could help the situation. Qt/X11 and
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Such a situation could also happen with gtk (think gtk/win32 or
| gtk/fbdev). How are we going to discover whether X11 is needed by some
| toolkit library? Having the user specify that looks like a reasonable
| choice for now.
Try to link a small
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Lars is not sure that he agrees with such a change, since we may not
> want to allow the use of LyX under a non-free toolkit and OS (Lars,
> correct me if I'm wrong). I am not sure where I stand myself.
Same for me.
Am I corr
perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
i don't really see a difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win,
yet there is an exception for xforms in the license
then a practical reason that concerns myself is that i moved to paris, and at
the institute where i am based everything is win
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:39:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> What do you mean by OK? Do you mean that the normal LyX will still
> produce correct symbols with this change?
No. I mean 'I know the patch and I've heard it fixes the problem'
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
Lars> Such a situation could also happen with gtk (think gtk/win32 or
Lars> | gtk/fbdev). How are we going to discover whether X11 is needed
Lars> by some | toolkit library? Hav
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:23:45PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
>
> i don't really see a difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win,
> yet there is an exception for xforms in the license
The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has be
> "Edwin" == Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edwin> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it i don't really see a
Edwin> difference between xforms before it was open and qt-win, yet
Edwin> there is an exception for xforms in the license
The xforms license was rather: ``do whatever you
On Fri Jul 4 2003 12:25, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has been in there all
> the time and all code was contributed to GPL + xforms exception, not to
> GPL + Qt exception.
i wasn't referring to the legal difference but to the (lack of a) moral
differen
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
Andre> _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and
Andre> using such a thing privately?
Andre> If not, ignore the rest of this post.
I am not sure that one is a
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:37:52PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Fri Jul 4 2003 12:25, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > The legal difference is that the xforms exceptions has been in there all
> > the time and all code was contributed to GPL + xforms exception, not to
> > GPL + Qt exception.
>
> i wasn'
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:49:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
> Andre> _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and
> Andre> using such a thing priva
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:23:45PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> perhaps unsurprisingly i am all for it
Me too. There is a huge market for LyX on Win32 and we currently have
serious barriers to adoption.
LyX alone is not likely to cause any significant migration from Windows
to Linux or another f
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
| Lars> Such a situation could also happen with gtk (think gtk/win32 or
| Lars> | gtk/fbdev). How are we going to discove
John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
>>>Rob Lahaye wrote:
>>>If allright, then please apply the patch.
>>
>>Is fine with me.
>>
>>Others?
>
> Yes, fine.
Then can someone apply the patch?
Thanks.
Rob.
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 04:32:45PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> | > It will have to wait a few days until my broadband is activated ...
> |
> | Hm... anybody else interested?
>
>
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:49:39PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
>> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Andre> Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the
Andre> _distribution_ of the pr
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:11:44PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> Even if so, this would not be a problem. LyX still works with
> Andre> xforms, doesn't it. In this case the Qt code may be dead
> Andre> ballast, but nobody forbids me to write 'void foo() {} int
> Andre> main() {}' whic
who says (c) is unfeasible, it all depends on who agrees
edwin
-Original Message-
From: Andre Poenitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 04/07/2003 14:29
To: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Cc: LyX Mechanics; Ruurd Reitsma; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do we want a native Qt/win port?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Some context: Ruurd would like us to distribute this port (the binaries for
> now), but this is only possible if we change our license to explicitly allow
> for linking against Qt non-commercial binary-only version.
Unless I'
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And it provides another example of the GPL failing to meet the requirements of
> evolving software applications -- more grist for those critical of open source.
Yes, the GPL has problems. The GPL is not an ideal license in many
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 01:16:31AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Troll Tech business model and
> > licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this
> > untenable position if developers wish to release Windows version
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:09:36AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> "Kayvan A. Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I went ahead and installed gcc-2.96 on my old Redhat system (built
> | from the source RPM) and all is well with the compiles again, except
> | that I got the following build
33 matches
Mail list logo
