John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> Does this look right?
yes, try your luck.
pavel
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:21 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
>> versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
>> so user gets unstable lyx at th
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
> versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
> so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
> (not well tested q
Liviu Andronic wrote:
> Is this feasible?
you know where the problems is only after the release.
pavel
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I thought about that as well, but it might be problematic with Ubuntu: the
> reason why ubuntu-tweak was not included in the ubuntu cd, was that it
> contained mechanisms to add ppas to the system - it seems that ubuntu does
> not like it if i
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
> their system (if ubuntu is happy with that) and also put the info in the
> help files
>
One innocent Easter egg would be just this: for all non-stable
releases and SVN/
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
> > one, offer to download it and install it.
>
> this is really not our bussines. each distro has its own package
> managment and there is no ma
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> I think asking Ubuntu to drop LyX from their official repos, was the
> "extremistic" part of that solution, not the creation of a PPA.
that was it :)
p
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
> one, offer to download it and install it.
this is really not our bussines. each distro has its own package
managment and there is no man power to care about all of them
(if you don't want to cripple
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
>
> Hmm, if we wanted to be really fancy we could add an "upgrade to
> lyx-2.0.latest" in the about dialog,
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
Hmm, if we wanted to be really fancy we could add an "upgrade to
lyx-2.0.latest" in the about dialog, and replace the "You have
crashed, please report a bug" message with
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > Checking
> >
> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
> > I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers,
> and
> > it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:
> >
> > "Some fresh blo
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
> > building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
> > role.
>
> I don't think
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
> building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
> role.
I don't think that Ubuntu would let you fill the role without a mentor
anyway. I ima
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> Checking
>
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
> I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers, and
> it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:
>
> "Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too"
> (Sven,
> http://lists.ali
Checking
http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers, and
it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:
"Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too"
(Sven,
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lyx-devel/
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
> the
> >> whole thing except extremistic "sol
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
> the
> > whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
>
> > devs to stop producing l
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> > Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
> > Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
> > reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
>
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> However even then it might be better for Debian to package the old LyX
> anyway. A fairly stable LyX like 1.6.9 should already have most of the
> bugs beaten out and not really have much need for updates, thus being
> more suitable for a stable distribution than 2.0.0 a
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
>
> hehehe. it reminds me time when climm developer (that time micq)
> was not able to push critical fixes into the debian release of his packag
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
hehehe. it reminds me time when climm developer (that time micq)
was not able to push critical fixes into the debian release of his package.
in certain moment his frustration exceeded the critical t
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
>> whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
>
>> devs to stop producing lyx b
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
> whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
> devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
>
Something that they would probably deny. In any cas
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
> Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
> reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
> with an Ubuntu sponsor and an application like the following:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
>> good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:
>
> i think the real issue is that there is really nobody who cares
> about lyx packag
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
> good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:
i think the real issue is that there is really nobody who cares
about lyx package, not that the info about needed lyx update
is missing. ther
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> I have the feeling we are getting somewhere with the creation of the ppa for
>> LyX.
>
> side note.
>
> firstly, do you know how the official binaries are prepared for ubuntu.
> are they blindly taken from debian or some
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I have the feeling we are getting somewhere with the creation of the ppa for
> LyX.
side note.
firstly, do you know how the official binaries are prepared for ubuntu.
are they blindly taken from debian or someone compiles the stuff again?
secondly, is it possible to be ubu
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> >> This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
> >> lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
> >> be more stable than the latest stable re
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
>> lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
>> be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
>> contain nasty regressions: it
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rainer M Krug
> wrote:
> > OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:
> > lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)
> > The following installations should b
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:
> lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)
> The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to enable
> parallel installation:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:59 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Liviu Andronic
> wrote:
> > In my view "release" is extraneous here. We could have instead:
> > lyx-1.6 (for latest stable 1.6.x release; probably forever 1.6.10)
> > lyx (for latest stable release, cu
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
> > adventurous as a daily build trunk user.
> >
> > So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
> > user as a third
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> In my view "release" is extraneous here. We could have instead:
> lyx-1.6 (for latest stable 1.6.x release; probably forever 1.6.10)
> lyx (for latest stable release, currently 2.0.0 and soon 2.0.1, while
> in the future it will stand for 2
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
>> adventurous as a daily build trunk user.
>>
>> So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
>> user as a third categ
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
> adventurous as a daily build trunk user.
>
> So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
> user as a third category which would mean a third ppa.
to be frank, except pre-
On 06/24/2011 05:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
>> I am sticking here with the mozilla terminology (I hope I get it
>> right), so:
>>
>> lyx-daily
>> daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
>> testing purposes -- uns
To chip in..
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
> Concerning naming, I would propose an explicit separation between daily and
> releases with names like
> lyx-daily-(stable|trunk)
>
This naming scheme seems most intuitive for daily builds. For most
purposes lyx-daily-s
Le 24/06/2011 15:34, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
My problem is to separate two kind of users:
* people who want a version of lyx safe with their documents (lyx
releases, branch daily builds). This is the ppa we can recommend to
everybody.
OK - if the developers feel comfortable wit
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/06/2011 14:26, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
>
> In this scheme we would be mixing releases with daily builds, which I
>> think is not a good idea. Also: a beta tester might not be interested in
>> the daily builds. Especially, I woul
Le 24/06/2011 14:26, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
In this scheme we would be mixing releases with daily builds, which I
think is not a good idea. Also: a beta tester might not be interested in
the daily builds. Especially, I would not mix the daily trunk builds
with anything else more stable - if some
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 24/06/2011 12:22, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
>
>
> I think one ppa should only hold the official final releases, with
>> version suffixes, and one lyx, which updates the ubuntu one. This should
>> be the one for the user who really wa
Le 24/06/2011 12:22, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
I think one ppa should only hold the official final releases, with
version suffixes, and one lyx, which updates the ubuntu one. This should
be the one for the user who really want's to be on the save side.
One other ppa should have the opposite - the
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
> Le 24/06/2011 11:52, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
>
> Ok. I think this all biols down to the understanding of how stable trunk
>> and BRANCH_2_0_X is.
>>
>> So the first question is:
>>
>> Which binaries do we want to have in ppas? and
>>
Sorry - forgot the reply all
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>
>> Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> > --- BRANCH_2_0_X (unstable but usable)
>>
>> As JMarc already noted, that's not true. Apart from expeptions that
>>
Le 24/06/2011 11:52, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
Ok. I think this all biols down to the understanding of how stable trunk
and BRANCH_2_0_X is.
So the first question is:
Which binaries do we want to have in ppas? and
We/you obviously have to decide what ppas are really useful (do adding
new ones
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> --- BRANCH_2_0_X (unstable but usable)
As JMarc already noted, that's not true. Apart from expeptions that actually
should not happen (but can happen even in official "stable" releases),
BRANCH_2_0_X is usually even more stable than our official "stable" releases.
Jürgen
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
> Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
>
> I am sticking here with the mozilla terminology (I hope I get it
>> right), so:
>>
>> lyx-daily
>> daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
>> testing pur
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
> there should always be a installation candidate "lyx" in the stable ppa,
> which effectively is always the newest version and installs as lyx without
> any version suffix.
Would that then clash with the official Ubuntu(tm) LyX package? Would
Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
I am sticking here with the mozilla terminology (I hope I get it
right), so:
lyx-daily
daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
testing purposes -- unstable
I would differentiate the wording for branch. The daily 2.0.x
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I am sticking here with the mozilla terminology (I hope I get it right),
> so:
>
> lyx-daily
> daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and only for
> testing purposes -- unstable
>
> lyx-beta
> official released beta versions of lyx. can be considered -
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > lyx-daily
> > lyx-stable
> >
> > and
> >
> > lyx-beta
>
> The latter should be called lyx-unstable unless it is a real beta release.
>
I am sticking here with the mozilla terminology (I hope I get it right),
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> lyx-daily
> lyx-stable
>
> and
>
> lyx-beta
The latter should be called lyx-unstable unless it is a real beta release.
Jürgen
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > We will have at least two ppas - namely lyx-daily for daily builds of
> trunc
>
> please make sure in some description that _trunk_ is not what users want
> unless they really know what they are doing.
>
Definitely -
Rainer M Krug wrote:
> We will have at least two ppas - namely lyx-daily for daily builds of trunc
please make sure in some description that _trunk_ is not what users want
unless they really know what they are doing.
pavel
Hi
I have the feeling we are getting somewhere with the creation of the ppa for
LyX.
We will have at least two ppas - namely lyx-daily for daily builds of trunc
and 2.0.x and lyx-stable for stable releases (2.0.x and including 1.6.x).
I just want to clarify two points about the pas and debs:
I
58 matches
Mail list logo
