LyX 2.0.0 release candidate 1 - (Non official Win32 binaries)

[Diego Queiroz]

Now, after reading your mail, I still don't understand what would be
wrong with providing AltInstaller now and add other installers later.

i dont block AltInstaller, i block EMAltInstaller. it was clear from
the previous problems that you dont share exactly Uwe's way of preparing binary.
whether AltInstaller survives is dependent on Uwe's decision of the support
of the official one.

I don't want to continue this long discussion (tl;dr), but I agree
with Pavel: these Alternative Installers should be blocked. We must
focus our efforts in one full featured installer.

If something should be available at installation process, the
discussion must focus on how include it in the official installer and
not in the creation of new one. I really don't see how EMAltInstaller
can be treated as "bonus" (it just confuses users).

On the other hand, I may agree with Michal opinion about the release
candidate. Not exactly because of his arguments, but I found the LyX
2.0 version for Windows very unstable including RC1 (and I'm not
talking about the installer). If LyX Team wants to provide support for
this platform, I think it should be tested a bit more before be called
a stable release.


Regards,
---
Diego Queiroz

    ... but why are you telling me this after I've put (wasted?) so much
time in building and testing this installer? It's not that I was hiding
or anything... knowing this beforehand, I'd have planned things
differently.

the key part is that when i asked about taking responsibility to care
about installer, you declined. thats perfectly fine, but then its unreasonable
to expect that i'm going to write long mails explaining the situation,
and doing mail digests from conference exchanges during last months
for your convenience.
the question about taking part on the official one was on my very
first mail for beta4 binary, so its not out of the blue either.

and advertise these well. Blocking out the paths you don't prefer
instead, is not a good idea IMHO - especially when this tactic leads to
offering no path (installer) whatsoever.

no. single installer has been tried out for several years and i smell
this is possible for lyx2 now. these two weeks are nothing compared
to burden we have with providing two different installers and their
bugfixing for next X years.

    Now, after reading your mail, I still don't understand what would be
wrong with providing AltInstaller now and add other installers later.

i dont block AltInstaller, i block EMAltInstaller. it was clear from
the previous problems that you dont share exactly Uwe's way of preparing binary.
whether AltInstaller survives is dependent on Uwe's decision of the support
of the official one.

    I mean: the version with completely untested installation process
shouldn't be called 'release candidate' at all. According to Wikipedia,
in release candidate '... all product features have been designed, coded
and TESTED' (emphasis mine).

lyx team releases only tarballs. all installers are - up to now - single
man shows. i'm not going to stop releases if they disappear to north pole
or are just busy. either they wake up or somebody new takes the responsibility.
i have been politely asking for months without success so there is probably
no other way than through this frustration, thats it ;)

    Please, rethink this all - I hope this mail will help somehow...
otherwise you are going to needlessly alienate your users, and one day,
some EMAltInstaller ('Even More Alternate Installer'), developed abroad,
will be an added bonus :)

be sure i was thinking about it a lot and discussed these matters with
installer guys in backgrounds as well.
see you in better times :) (hopefully)
pavel

[Pavel Sanda]

Post by Diego Queiroz
I found the LyX
2.0 version for Windows very unstable including RC1

did you reported the problems or crashes? we didnt have this kind of reports
thats why RC is here.

pavel

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Post by Pavel Sanda

Post by Diego Queiroz
I found the LyX
2.0 version for Windows very unstable including RC1

did you reported the problems or crashes? we didnt have this kind of reports
thats why RC is here.
pavel

#7167, #7261, #7345, #7357....

You need more ?

Vincent

[Pavel Sanda]

Post by Vincent van Ravesteijn
#7167, #7261, #7345, #7357....
You need more ?

i need different :)
most of them were (re)opened after rc1 so i have no idea
how should i decide about rc1 according to them.

but i have no problem to go for more RCs if you feel that we
should take more time for stabilization.

pavel

[Joost Verburg]

rc1 installer is announced by Joost in one week, so
for this moment things are ok, but it would be good if you can try
to reproduce the buidling process and let us know whether
the instructions can be followed by somebody else.

The Windows installer for RC1 will be available later today.

Joost

[Pavel Sanda]

i dont block AltInstaller, i block EMAltInstaller. it was clear from
the previous problems that you dont share exactly Uwe's way of
preparing binary. whether AltInstaller survives is dependent on Uwe's
decision of the support of the official one.

Ok, I just find it strange to block anything at all - LyX is FLOSS,

i will tell you secret, which will make things hopefully less strange :)
they are not the satisfied users who becomes developers, but the frustrated
ones. you didn't started this thread because you were happy with the installers
state of art, right? not that i'm happy about it but "never annoy users" mantra
is not going to help.

so my battle is to
1) have complete installer when 2.0 is out.
2) have a single installer at the end.
3) have somebody (new?), who maintains it, even better have clear and bug free
instructions, so we are not dependent on a single man like it is now.

altinstaller doesn't satisfy completeness and its dev is busy.
official one "is claimed" for that, with some announced schedule.

creating available installers which imitatites altinstaller is going
against all three points. beta4 case was different in two important
aspects - Uwe claimed to be here at the end of Feb (!true) &
Joost didn't claim to work on official one like now.

lyx team releases only tarballs. all installers are - up to now -
single man shows. i'm not going to stop releases if they disappear to
north pole or are just busy. either they wake up or somebody new takes
the responsibility. i have been politely asking for months without
success so there is probably no other way than through this
frustration, thats it ;)

Ok, now I'm confused: why is installer's source code inside the
official rc1 tarball then? Mark it as 'unsupported' or something,
otherwise it seems simply misleading to me.

the one who is responsible for creating installer creates it _after_
i release rc1 and he does it from tarball.
i usually wait for day or such so interested parties can create
binaries, so annoucement covers them as well... with mac or
some linux distros this works well. it worked fine even with win
some time back.

and if you mean why is _altinstaller_ source is there it waits on Uwe
decision.

pavel