Re: [eLyXer-users] Re: Advice for another LyX-oriented project

[Alex Fernandez]

Hi Jack,

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Jack Desert <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm still torn between modular vs executable usage. Executable usage seems to 
> require a .py extension on Windows which makes the name lyxblogger even 
> longer. Modular usage requires extra typing in its own way. Executable usage 
> also requires that the script be placed in the system path.

Python developers recommend using modular installation for your packages.

> Windows options:
>  python -m lyxblogger input_file.(x)html
>  lyxblogger.py input_file.(x)html

The latter requires that you are on the same directory as
lyxblogger.py, or it is on the %PATH%.

> I also notice that in lib/configure.py you search for one module and two 
> programs:
>  elyxer      (module)
>  elyxer.py   (program)
>  elyxer      (program)

This is because my own distribution and some GNU/Linux distros (e.g.
OpenSUSE) use the .py extension; Debian and others don't.

> Perhaps I should include both lyxblogger and lyxblogger.py as programs in 
> lib/configure.py. Then distribute zip files with lyxblogger.py and tar.gz 
> files with simply lyxblogger (no extension). Let's see.. simplicity.. 
> consistency.. ease of use. Would love to have all three.

By the way, I saw your submission of lyxblogger, and I will be
reviewing it (I'm an admin on a basis trial there). It should not take
long to approve, although some true admin has to do it.

> I would prefer to give installation instructions for just one method. Either 
> as an executable or as a module. It also saves the case where they have 
> lyxblogger installed both as a module and as a program. Then they forget 
> which one they are using when they either upgrade or go to edit the 
> AUTO_LOGIN credentials. Actually, since I am suggesting that they change the 
> script by entering their own AUTO_URL, having it as a script would save them 
> having to reinstall the module when they change the file.

I was also torn with these same considerations. In fact the "elegant"
way was developed because a LyX developer (Uwe) had trouble with his
Python installation, and could not run elyxer.py from the path. He
uses Windows, and installing things without admin privileges is not as
easy as on GNU/Linux; he wanted elyxer.py to reside in
$lyx_home/scripts, but that was suboptimal for various reasons -- the
most important being that independently installed copies of eLyXer
were sure to fail, and the second that eLyXer would be overwritten
every time LyX was updated unless it came in the installer.

> Thoughts?

Believe me, if I had found a good solution I would be using it! :D
Your idea of having an installation script looks good to me, if you
are willing to take the trouble for it. That way you can change what
you do depending on the platform. On the downside, you will have to
get people to execute a Python script, which can be troubling for some
people.

Another possibility is joint distribution with LyX, but that one
brings its own set of problems. You are getting a taste of what has
got me fed up.

Alex.