Re: [patch] update PDF viewers in configure.py

El 31.07.2017 a las 19:50, Christian Ridderström escribió: The reason for my reluctance is probably: - Any risk of licensing-related issues, i.e. is Master PDF honouring SW licenses correctly. Please. Since when are we there to judge other software? The user is free to decide what he likes.

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On 1 August 2017 at 21:24, Richard Heck wrote: > On 08/01/2017 04:54 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:35:27AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > >> Pavel Sanda wrote: > >>> I did not hear your reaction to it either. > >> I see you just did that, sorry... P > > I

Discussing minted/safety/etc (Was: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue)

Richard wrote: > We have spent an enormous amount of time on this ... > Hi, Some thoughts regarding the discussion of safety and design of security measures, i.e. a kind of "lessons learned" regarding the discussion aspects. I think one thing that made things slower and more inefficient was a

Long threads? / list etiquette? (Was: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue)

Richard wrote: > We have spent an enormous amount of time on this ... > HI, Regarding the discussion of LyX's safety I'd like to make a few remarks related to ... ?list etiquette? Not sure what the correct term should be, but it ought to be clear below. Really long threads: Are we really ok

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On 1 August 2017 at 01:25, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Christian Ridderström wrote: > > Please note that I'm _not_ wholly against something like needauth, I'm > simply > > not convinced it's good enough. In fact, I'm still unclear on exactly > how it > > currently works, or perhaps

Re: Regarding safety/security, the DOCX and DOCM formats of MS Office

On 1 August 2017 at 10:54, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:26:52AM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > > Anyway, I'm not really advocating a new file extension like '.lyxm', but > > simply trying to illustrate that MS Office tries hard to keep the >

Re: r41086 - www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX

On 1 August 2017 at 10:54, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:45:55PM +0200, sa...@lyx.org wrote: > > Author: sanda > > Date: Mon Jul 31 21:45:55 2017 > > New Revision: 41086 > > URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/41086 > > > > Log: > > Update master

Re: lyx executable built with cmake will not run

On 1 August 2017 at 14:47, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: > > It does not work, I can confirm. > > Here is what I ran: > > $ git clone g...@git.lyx.org:lyx newmaster > $ cd newmaster > $ automake > $ cd ../cbuildnm > $ cmake -DLYX_ENABLE_EXPORT_TESTS=ON

What kinds of "code" can be embedded in a LyX document and "run" from LyX?

Hi, For the purpose of discussions on safety/security and needauth/shell-escape, I would like to have, and document, a more complete picture of the different kinds of use scenarios where LyX causes code to be executed that was either embedded in a LyX document, or or in some external file

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On 08/01/2017 04:54 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:35:27AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: >> Pavel Sanda wrote: >>> I did not hear your reaction to it either. >> I see you just did that, sorry... P > I believe that except for Enrico and I, everyone who participated in > this

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:54:05AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > So to be clear: although we are going to release beta1 with minted > support, depending on the post-beta1 vote, we may decide to remove it. Sorry, but this is not fair. The option to remove support has been just voted and it

Re: lyx executable built with cmake will not run

Am Dienstag, 1. August 2017 um 14:47:36, schrieb Jean-Pierre Chrétien > Le 01/08/2017 à 10:57, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:23:07PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: > >> Le 31/07/2017 à 18:09, Kornel Benko a écrit : > >> > I don't

Re: lyx executable built with cmake will not run

Le 01/08/2017 à 10:57, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:23:07PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: Le 31/07/2017 à 18:09, Kornel Benko a écrit : I don't understand, I can load bin/lyx2.3 all right now. So everything works again? Seems to work, I've recompiled

Re: [LyX/master] UserGuide.lyx: accept and distribute description of inverted branches

  Original Message   From: Scott Kostyshak Sent: Dienstag, 1. August 2017 10:57 >  So I guess that for Additional, I will create a > Changelog-Additional-LyX_23x.txt retaining only what is to be done once I've > done the copy to es|fr[ja. > CC'ing Uwe since I think he does not follow all

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

Am Dienstag, 1. August 2017 um 11:10:09, schrieb Stephan Witt > Am 01.08.2017 um 10:54 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:35:27AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > >> Pavel Sanda wrote: > >>> I did not hear your reaction to it either. > >>

Re: [LyX features/properpaint] Fix caret painting

I am not working on it anymore unless I get bug reports. I will merge it in 2.4.0 asap. JMarc Le 1 août 2017 01:35:49 GMT+02:00, Pavel Sanda a écrit : >What is your strategy with features/properpaint? To continue piling up >new patches on top of if or leave it for testing? >

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:10:09AM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 01.08.2017 um 10:54 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:35:27AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > >> Pavel Sanda wrote: > >>> I did not hear your reaction to it either. > >> > >> I see you

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

Am 01.08.2017 um 10:54 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:35:27AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: >> Pavel Sanda wrote: >>> I did not hear your reaction to it either. >> >> I see you just did that, sorry... P > > I believe that except for Enrico and I, everyone

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:43:04AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Corrected at 44babaf6. Thanks, that works well. The only other comment I have is to possibly instruct the user to reconfigure after installing the module. If I recall, that's what we say in similar contexts. Scott

Re: lyx executable built with cmake will not run

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:23:07PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: > Le 31/07/2017 à 18:09, Kornel Benko a écrit : > > > > I don't understand, I can load bin/lyx2.3 all right now. > > > > > > > So everything works again? > > Seems to work, I've recompiled from scratch after editing the

Re: [LyX/master] UserGuide.lyx: accept and distribute description of inverted branches

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 10:45:19PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: > Le 30/07/2017 à 22:20, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : > > commit 5513e465893ae255f75aaecc304133ba01a89e08 > > Author: Uwe Stöhr > > Date: Sun Jul 30 22:20:03 2017 +0200 > > > > UserGuide.lyx: accept and

Re: Going into dangerous mode (Was: Can shell-escape take advantage of needauth framework?)

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:57:55PM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > Do we have an overview somewhere (with patch reference) for the > alternatives proposed for beta1, which is then what's likely to end up in > 2.3? > Note: I did just look at the wiki page but didn't see it there clearly. No

Re: alpha beta lyx-formats and devel versions of the docs

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 07:55:55PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > My personal policy is to stop working on the stable branch docs with the > release of the first beta of a new version. This is just to save manpower. > We have not released a beta yet, but I already started the doc updating for > 2.3.

Re: Regarding safety/security, the DOCX and DOCM formats of MS Office

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:26:52AM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > Anyway, I'm not really advocating a new file extension like '.lyxm', but > simply trying to illustrate that MS Office tries hard to keep the defaults > safe, to the extent of not permitting macros at all. Interesting idea.

Re: r41086 - www-user/trunk/farm/cookbook/LyX

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:45:55PM +0200, sa...@lyx.org wrote: > Author: sanda > Date: Mon Jul 31 21:45:55 2017 > New Revision: 41086 > URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/41086 > > Log: > Update master translation status for web. > > 2Scott: > $ cd ~/lyx/master/po > $ make i18n.inc > $ mv

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:35:27AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > I did not hear your reaction to it either. > > I see you just did that, sorry... P I believe that except for Enrico and I, everyone who participated in this conversation has voted. Uwe was interested in voting,

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > So I think a very important question is if we think needauth is > sufficiently good, > or can be made sufficiently good before release. My opinion is that yes. > IMHO it's for LyX 2.3 not ok to do a release that's unsafe

Re: Options for resolving the minted + shell-escape issue

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:07:11PM +0200, Guillaume MM wrote: > I am sure that Scott meant to include in some way the option that I have > been advocating constantly from the beginning, which I understand is > probably 1. (Otherwise, I do not see what the option 1. refers to nor > who proposed