On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 01/07/2016 à 03:44, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > > I just tried 1.15 with Ubuntu 15.10 and I do get the same error. The
> > > mystery remains.
> >
> > I still see this with current master and Ubuntu 16.04.
> >
> > Does th
Le 01/07/2016 à 03:44, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
I just tried 1.15 with Ubuntu 15.10 and I do get the same error. The
mystery remains.
I still see this with current master and Ubuntu 16.04.
Does the following work for anyone on current master?
git reset --hard && git clean -xdf && ./autogen.s
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> This was a tough one. distcheck was broken for a while (while showing it's
> famous lyx.pot message) and bisecting nowadays master is like walking
> through the minefield where bunch of commits do not compile at all or git
> gets crazy due to cr-lf mismanagement.
I still do n
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:42:47PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Does the following work for anyone on current master?
> >
> > git reset --hard && git clean -xdf && ./autogen.sh &&
> > ./configure --enable-build-type=pre &&
> > make &&
> > make check &&
> > make distcheck &
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Does the following work for anyone on current master?
>
> git reset --hard && git clean -xdf && ./autogen.sh &&
> ./configure --enable-build-type=pre &&
> make &&
> make check &&
> make distcheck &&
> echo "GOOD"
This was a tough one. distcheck was broken for a while
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 01:45:58AM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:47:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 12/01/2016 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>
> > >It would be nice to know what happens with 1.15. Ubuntu 15.10 has 1.15
> > >so I will try to do a fresh
Am Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2016 um 12:08:20, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:47:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 12/01/2016 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > >I wonder if the difference in behavior is due to:
> > >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/201
I would say that parallel building can be a bad idea.
The fact that we have added some dependencies in po/Rules-lyx is probably a
factor too, but it is not new to 2.2.
JMarc
Le 28 janvier 2016 18:08:20 GMT+01:00, Scott Kostyshak a
écrit :
>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:47:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc L
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:47:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/01/2016 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >I wonder if the difference in behavior is due to:
> >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2012-07/msg00023.html
> >
> >That thread is linked to on the main page:
> >https:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:47:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/01/2016 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >It would be nice to know what happens with 1.15. Ubuntu 15.10 has 1.15
> >so I will try to do a fresh install and check it out. Not sure when
> >though.
>
> I just tried it an
Am Dienstag, 12. Januar 2016 um 14:47:35, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> Le 12/01/2016 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > I wonder if the difference in behavior is due to:
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2012-07/msg00023.html
> >
> > That thread is linked to on the main page:
> >
Le 12/01/2016 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
I wonder if the difference in behavior is due to:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2012-07/msg00023.html
That thread is linked to on the main page:
https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/
It is interesting but I fail to see how this could
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:48:59PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
> > Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can you reproduce now?
> > >
> > > Nope. Smells like automake/autoconf versions. What is your config?
> >
> > These versions produce the error f
Am Freitag, 8. Januar 2016 um 21:43:17, schrieb Georg Baum
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 02:30:58PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >> > > > These versions produce the error for me:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > $ ./autogen.sh
> >> > > > Using automake (
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 02:30:58PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> > > > These versions produce the error for me:
>> > > >
>> > > > $ ./autogen.sh
>> > > > Using automake (GNU automake) 1.14.1
>> > > > Using autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69
>> > > >
>>
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> I do observe this problem on 2.1.x.
Cool, so we don't see regression in terms of lyx codebase :)
P
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 02:30:58PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > > These versions produce the error for me:
> > > >
> > > > $ ./autogen.sh
> > > > Using automake (GNU automake) 1.14.1
> > > > Using autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Georg
> > >
> >
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > These versions produce the error for me:
> > >
> > > $ ./autogen.sh
> > > Using automake (GNU automake) 1.14.1
> > > Using autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69
> > >
> > >
> > > Georg
> >
> > I have the same, with the error too.
>
> I have the same as Kornel and Georg.
A
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 10:59:26PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2016 um 22:42:03, schrieb Georg Baum
>
> > Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can you reproduce now?
> > >
> > > Nope. Smells like automake/autoconf versions. What is your co
Am Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2016 um 22:42:03, schrieb Georg Baum
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you reproduce now?
> >
> > Nope. Smells like automake/autoconf versions. What is your config?
>
> These versions produce the error for me:
>
> $ ./autogen.sh
> Using
Georg Baum wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you reproduce now?
> >
> > Nope. Smells like automake/autoconf versions. What is your config?
>
> These versions produce the error for me:
>
> $ ./autogen.sh
> Using automake (GNU automake) 1.14.1
> Using autoco
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Nope. Smells like automake/autoconf versions. What is your config?
>
> First part is below. Do you want the whole (long) config.log file?
Sorry I just meant these two commands:
automake --version
autoconf --version
P
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>> Can you reproduce now?
>
> Nope. Smells like automake/autoconf versions. What is your config?
These versions produce the error for me:
$ ./autogen.sh
Using automake (GNU automake) 1.14.1
Using autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69
Georg
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:24:45PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > ---
> > mkdir /tmp/tmp.EI1jW3t6A1
> > cd /path/to/git/repo
> > git reset --hard
> > git clean -xdf
> > ./autogen.sh
> > cd /tmp/tmp.EI1jW3t6A1 && /path/to/git/repo/configure
> > --enable-build-type=pre --enab
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> ---
> mkdir /tmp/tmp.EI1jW3t6A1
> cd /path/to/git/repo
> git reset --hard
> git clean -xdf
> ./autogen.sh
> cd /tmp/tmp.EI1jW3t6A1 && /path/to/git/repo/configure --enable-build-type=pre
> --enable-monolithic-build=no
> make -j4
> make -j4 check
> make -j4 distcheck
> echo
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 02:22:35PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
> > Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > >> (although I still don't understand why). I get another instance of the
> > >> same error though when using a build directory instead of an in-source
> > >
Georg Baum wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >> (although I still don't understand why). I get another instance of the
> >> same error though when using a build directory instead of an in-source
> >> build.
> >
> > Recipe? P
>
> Starting from the top level source directo
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> (although I still don't understand why). I get another instance of the
>> same error though when using a build directory instead of an in-source
>> build.
>
> Recipe? P
Starting from the top level source directory:
./autogen.sh
mkdir buildtest
cd b
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> (although I still don't understand why). I get another instance of the
> same error though when using a build directory instead of an in-source
> build.
Recipe? P
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:10:55PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >> Can anyone else reproduce this error from the following command?
> >>
> >> # make sure no local changes you want to keep in your LyX directory
> >> # fi
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>> Can anyone else reproduce this error from the following command?
>>
>> # make sure no local changes you want to keep in your LyX directory
>> # first do 'git reset --hard'
>> # then 'git clean -xdf'
>> ./autogen.sh && .
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 03/01/2016 13:08, Kornel Benko a écrit :
>> I think, we cannot solve it now. As I understand, automake expects that
>> the source dir will not be changed, but our po-handling changes not only
>> lyx.pot but also all files in the po directory. Lyx.pot is only the fi
Le 03/01/2016 13:08, Kornel Benko a écrit :
I think, we cannot solve it now. As I understand, automake expects that the
source
dir will not be changed, but our po-handling changes not only lyx.pot but also
all files in the po directory. Lyx.pot is only the first one found.
Normally, a fresh un
Am Sonntag, 20. Dezember 2015 um 16:39:33, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:19:59AM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > It would be nice to fix this so that we can run all of the compilation
> > > tests before releasing beta.
> >
> > Did you try to bise
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:17:08PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> > It would be nice to fix this so that we can run all of the compilation
> > tests before releasing beta.
>
> Definitely.
Would you say this should be a beta blocker? If so, what about an alpha
blocker? If so, I will make this clear i
Le 19/12/2015 12:17, Georg Baum a écrit :
This code is executed in build-dir/po, so ../../po/lyx.pot points to the
file in the source tree. lyx.pot exists and is writable, so the only thing I
can imagine is some trickery that tries to forbid writing into the source
tree by faking permissions, but
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:41:02AM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Samstag, 19. Dezember 2015 um 05:24:48, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
>
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:28:32PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:20:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:19:59AM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > It would be nice to fix this so that we can run all of the compilation
> > tests before releasing beta.
>
> Did you try to bisect? Pavel
Yes I did this for a previous instance of the error. I bisected on two
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> It would be nice to fix this so that we can run all of the compilation
> tests before releasing beta.
Did you try to bisect? Pavel
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> I am still seeing the error. I don't know if it is another instance of
> it or the same one. Is there anyone that does not see the error that
> would be interested in investigating? If so, I will give the precise
> steps to reproduce.
I get it as well. It seems to be caus
Am Samstag, 19. Dezember 2015 um 05:24:48, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:28:32PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:20:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >
> > > > I have no idea why, but the attached patch seems to fix 'make
> > > > distc
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:28:32PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:20:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > > I have no idea why, but the attached patch seems to fix 'make
> > > distcheck' for me.
> > >
> > > Can it go in?
> >
> > It is strange that it can fix
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:20:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > I have no idea why, but the attached patch seems to fix 'make
> > distcheck' for me.
> >
> > Can it go in?
>
> It is strange that it can fix anything. But it should definitely go
> in.
OK it's in at 7c4a1e16.
> Did you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 14/12/2015 22:14, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 09:35:57PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting idea. In this case, a git bisect would be worthless
>>> so I will wait before doing it. Is there
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 09:35:57PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > Interesting idea. In this case, a git bisect would be worthless so I
> > will wait before doing it. Is there a way to test your theory? If we use
> > 'touch' to update a file and then try?
>
> I'd think so.
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Interesting idea. In this case, a git bisect would be worthless so I
> will wait before doing it. Is there a way to test your theory? If we use
> 'touch' to update a file and then try?
I'd think so.
Georg
Le 10/12/2015 03:30, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:11:53PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
This is just a shot in the dark, but when I try to compile from a fresh git
checkout with autotools, it updates all po and gmo files once, including
lyx.pot. This dos not happen anymore for
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:11:53PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > I run out of ideas and my makefile debugging skills are limited.
> >
> > Pavel, would you have an idea?
> > - make distcheck works on 2.1, not 2.2
> > - --disable-nls does not matter here
> > - t
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I run out of ideas and my makefile debugging skills are limited.
>
> Pavel, would you have an idea?
> - make distcheck works on 2.1, not 2.2
> - --disable-nls does not matter here
> - the Makefile.in.in is the same in both cases
> - actually everything seems to
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Pavel, would you have an idea?
> > - make distcheck works on 2.1, not 2.2
>
> I did not realize it worked on 2.1. I still have not confirmed this, but
> if it does work for me, I do not mind doing a git bisect. Would that
> help?
That would help, I might have little bi
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 05:06:10PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >Can anyone else reproduce this error from the following command?
> >
> ># make sure no local changes you want to keep in your LyX directory
> ># first do 'git reset --hard'
> >#
Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Can anyone else reproduce this error from the following command?
# make sure no local changes you want to keep in your LyX directory
# first do 'git reset --hard'
# then 'git clean -xdf'
./autogen.sh && ./configure --enable-build-type=pre --disable-
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >rm: cannot remove ‘../../po/lyx.pot’: Permission denied
> >Makefile:368: recipe for target 'lyx.pot-update' failed
> >
> >I wouldn't be surprised if this is something specific t
Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
rm: cannot remove ‘../../po/lyx.pot’: Permission denied
Makefile:368: recipe for target 'lyx.pot-update' failed
I wouldn't be surprised if this is something specific to my computer but
thought I would check in just to make sure.
All I can say for
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 09:29:28PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >Can anyone else reproduce this error from the following command?
> >
> ># make sure no local changes you want to keep in your LyX directory
> ># first do 'git reset --hard'
> >#
Le 25/11/2015 08:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Can anyone else reproduce this error from the following command?
# make sure no local changes you want to keep in your LyX directory
# first do 'git reset --hard'
# then 'git clean -xdf'
./autogen.sh && ./configure --enable-build-type=pre --disable-
Can anyone else reproduce this error from the following command?
# make sure no local changes you want to keep in your LyX directory
# first do 'git reset --hard'
# then 'git clean -xdf'
./autogen.sh && ./configure --enable-build-type=pre --disable-nls && make &&
make check && make distcheck && e
57 matches
Mail list logo
