Sigil 0.7.0 Released

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by user_none

Uninstall, ensure you don't have a Sigil folder in Program Files. If you do delete it. Then install 0.7.0. It could be a conflict due to some Qt files being left over.

Thanks, I tried your suggestion, but still get the same run-time error when launching Sigil. However, it did install OK on another computer running XP SP3.

There must be something quirky on the first XP SP3 computer. I can re-install 0.6.2 and that version runs fine.

[ElMiko]

Absolutely beautiful work, guys. I echo the sentiment that the new spellcheck dialogue is better designed than spellcheck dialogues for dedicated word processing software. Huge kudos.

I've only run into one bug with the "Clips" window. Namely, it doesn't work within the ncx file. Clips are applied to the ncx file if they are accessed through the context menu, but not when you try to apply it from the panel.

[meme]

Originally Posted by ElMiko

Absolutely beautiful work, guys. I echo the sentiment that the new spellcheck dialogue is better designed than spellcheck dialogues for dedicated word processing software. Huge kudos.

I've only run into one bug with the "Clips" window. Namely, it doesn't work within the ncx file. Clips are applied to the ncx file if they are accessed through the context menu, but not when you try to apply it from the panel.

Thanks. I'll need to look at that Clips code again - I'm pretty sure it works for me on Linux. Possibly a focus issue on certain OS's.

There are a few ways to apply clips. Can you test each one. For each one click in the NCX file, and then try Paste Clip in the Clips Editor; try Insert->Clip->clipname; try clicking on a button in the Clip Bar; try using the View->Clips window and selecting a clip; right-click on the NCX and select a Clip; and, almost forgot this one, click in the NCX and then use a clip shortcut (e.g. ctrl-alt-1).

[ElMiko]

Originally Posted by meme

I'm pretty sure it works for me on Linux.

D'oh! Forgot to give you my OS info. I'm running Vista.

[ElMiko]

Hmmm... sorry for the double post, but I've run into something kind of funky. "Count" and "Go to next" are failing to recognize matches throughout the document if the search is begun on a page in which there's no match for search.

I've noticed this on two separate occasions, but it's probably happened more than that, and simply gone unnoticed.

these are the two regex searches (loaded from my saved searches) that have failed.

<p [^>]*>(.*?)<a [^>]*>(.*?)</a>(.*?)</p>

and

<p class="brheavy"><br /></p>\s+<p class="calibre1">

I use them to match the following kinds of strings, respectively:

  <p class="center"><a href="../Text/File_01.htm">Some</a> text<a id="qewrqwe"></a></p>

and

  <p class="brheavy"><br /></p>

  <p class="calibre1">some text</p>

(obviously, the red text is excluded from the match)

The first search type sometimes works... I can't replicate the error consistently. But the second one always fails.

[user_none]

@ElMiko, Could the searching issue be due to wrapping being disabled? If you put the mouse cursor at the top of the document does it match. If you put it at the bottom does it not match?. If you expand the F&R options (the arrow on the bottom left) is wrap checked?

I tried the test expressions and content you posted and I could only get it to not match if wrapping was disabled. Though it looks like Count All might need to be renamed to Count if it's honoring wrapping.

[ElMiko]

Originally Posted by user_none

If you expand the F&R options (the arrow on the bottom left) is wrap checked?

Wrap is checked and still i get bupkis on the "brheavy" search.

[meme]

Originally Posted by ElMiko

The first search type sometimes works... I can't replicate the error consistently. But the second one always fails.

It works for me. Could you PM me a link to a copy of the epub and your saved searches.ini file (right click in Saved Searches and do Export All) so we can check the actual file in case any special characters are getting mangled from posting?

Also, check your setting is Regex and All HTML Files (if you are expecting to search across files). And check your Clean Source settings are Pretty Print Tidy for Save/Open/Replace All (or if not let us know).

Count All and Replace All both honour the wrap setting. The do count or replace all occurrences from your position to the end if no wrap is set.

[Perkin]

ElMiko, Not helping with current problem, but ... regarding your second search, you may want to change the calibre class match <p class="calibre1"> to <p class="calibre\d+"> as calibre rarely converts two files the same and the calibre# is usually a different number, that may match more incidents.

[theducks]

@user_none
I have been seeing some inconsistent (7.x) REGEX S&R recently

I might be confused about the use of #1 (I am not a REGEX guru )

<b class="foo">words</b> <b class="foo">more words</b></p>

1)match Minimal ticked:

(?U)<b class="foo">(.+?)</b>\s

would not find just a single 'b' tag pair

I did something else then came back:
Then it just started working . I tried just the minimal tick, Just the (?U) , both.


2) wrap Not Ticked still wraps within the current file if All HTML selected and using Replace/Find (I was wrapping carefully chosen words in a tag pair and noticed OMG, I had already wrapped that word before, twice ) Wrap was not ticked

[roger64]

Linux Install troubles

The good news is that they are solved - for me - and I have Sigil 0.7 running on LMDE 64 bits.

But I found the install very uneasy. I do not know why, but some locked tmp folders have been created during the install, and I could not even launch Firefox except with sudo... I had to reinstall for this reason.

Even now, I can launch Sigil only with a script giving him every time the location of the Qt5 library (this idea coming from Diap Dealer).

I hope I am alone facing these hurdles, because the number of Linux users may drop dramatically if this install is not made clearer.

Here is the install record if this can help the next one..
Beware of the paths, beware of everything...

Spoiler:

I created the recommended folders in my HOME, Qt5.0.1, sigil-build, sigil-source.

roger@lmde64:~/compilation/sigil-build$ cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_PREFIX_PATH=$HOME/compilation/Qt5.0.1/5.0.1/gcc_64/lib/cmake/ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$HOME/compilation/tmp/sigil-run -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DFORCE_BUNDLED_COPIES=1 $HOME/compilation/sigil-source
-- Configuring done
-- Generating done
-- Build files have been written to: /home/roger/compilation/sigil-build

cd ~/compilation/sigil-build

make
[100%] Built target sigil


roger@lmde64:~/compilation/sigil-build$ sudo make install
[sudo] password for roger:
[ 4%] Built target tidyLib
[ 10%] Built target BoostParts
[ 12%] Built target zlib
[ 12%] Built target minizip
[ 51%] Built target Xerces
[ 53%] Built target hunspell
[ 56%] Built target pcre
[ 57%] Built target XercesExtensions
[ 57%] Built target gccPCH_fc
[ 71%] Built target FlightCrew
[ 71%] Automoc for target sigil
[ 71%] Built target sigil_automoc
[100%] Built target sigil
Install the project...
-- Install configuration: "Release"
-- Installing: /home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/bin/sigil
-- Removed runtime path from "/home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/bin/sigil"
-- Installing: /home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/share/applications/sigil.desktop
-- Installing: /home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/share/pixmaps/sigil.png
-- Installing: /home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/share/sigil/translations/sigil_ug.qm
-- Installing: /home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/share/sigil/translations/sigil_pt_BR.qm

.../...

-- Installing: /home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/share/sigil/examples/clip_entries.ini
-- Installing: /home/roger/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/share/sigil/examples/search_entries.ini
roger@lmde64:~/compilation/sigil-build$

Indiquer le chemin de la bibliothèque qt5

roger@lmde64:~$ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=~/compilation/Qt5.0.1/5.0.1/gcc_64/lib

Lancer Sigil

roger@lmde64:~$ ~/compilation/tmp/sigil-run/bin/sigil

And a screenshot of the- already famous - spellchecking novelty...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by roger64

[B]Even now, I can launch Sigil only with a script giving him every time the location of the Qt5 library (this idea coming from Diap Dealer).

I hope I am alone facing these hurdles, because the number of Linux users may drop dramatically if this install is not made clearer.

Glad you got it working.

The problem is... it's not really an install, it's a build. As such, it will never be completely easy/clear. That's just the nature of custom compilation—it's not for the "casual" Linux user.

I agree with you—to some extent—about possibly losing Linux users. But at the same time... I also recognize the need for the Sigil devs to wash their hands of any Linux "install program." In the Linux tradition, it's the duty of repository maintainers to provide a simple binary installation package (ensuring all necessary dependencies) for open-source software and not the software developers.

Unfortunately, this means that the easy/clear installations of your favorite open-source software will never be the most up to date versions. There's a lag. If you want the cutting edge versions, there will always be hoops to jump through in setting up a proper build environment.

If you want more recent versions of Sigil to be a part of your flavor of Linux's repositories... then you need to hound the maintainers of those repositories (although in this case, even if a repo maintainer were willing to take up the cause, Sigil 7's Qt 5 dependency is going to cause some issues, since I don't believe there's any binary Qt 5 packages in any of the standard repos just yet).

Some knowledgeable users might be able to work up some custom debian|rpm packages that included only the necessary Qt libs and a custom launch script if they were feeling generous. Might make it a bit easier on the non-technical Linux user.

[meme]

Originally Posted by theducks

<b class="foo">words</b> <b class="foo">more words</b></p>

1)match Minimal ticked:

(?U)<b class="foo">(.+?)</b>\s

would not find just a single 'b' tag pair

I did something else then came back:
Then it just started working . I tried just the minimal tick, Just the (?U) , both.

Minimal match just prepends (?U) to your expression. So you don't need to do it twice. And I believe the ? in .+? means minimal match as well, so it isn't needed if you use one of the other methods.

That said, it works for me as shown. However, if I change your line to:

<b class="foo">words</b> <b class="foo">more words</b> </p>

note the space after the second </b>, then when I do a Find it highlights both bold items instead of just one.

If I then remove the ? from the .+? it correctly just matches one at a time.

I'm not a regex guru either, but the use of (?U) and ? in .+? seems to cause a conflict or tells it to reverse the minimal matching.

And as far as it not working, then working, I suspect this is due to Pretty Print Tidy - if you switched away and back it may have removed that space at the end, giving only one possible match with \s

2) wrap Not Ticked still wraps within the current file if All HTML selected and using Replace/Find

I can duplicate this. Yet I know I tested this scenario. If you have wrap turned off and All HTML Files set, and you use, e.g. Find, then it will correctly step through files until you get to the last file - at which point it will jump to the top of the file instead of just stopping. If you use Current File then it correctly stops. I've raised an issue for this.

[meme]

@roger64 - is there anything that didn't work or wasn't clear about the build instructions?

mkdir $HOME/sigil-run
mkdir $HOME/sigil-build

cd $HOME/sigil-build
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/Qt5.0.1/5.0.1/gcc/lib
cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$HOME/tmp/sigil-run -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DFORCE_BUNDLED_COPIES=1 $HOME/sigil-source

$HOME/sigil-run/bin/sigil

Its about as easy as I could make it. Granted, its not a .deb for you to install - but as DiapDealer mentioned, maybe someone can compile and make it available as one, with Qt 5.0.1.

As far as the instructions go, I think I'll split it into build and run so its clear you always need to include the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which you can easily do in a script.


And since you mention Spellchecking - how is this version working for you. The issue with apostrophes should be sorted out - well, at least better than it was hopefully.

[theducks]

@Meme
I will use only one 'minimal match' from now on (BTW, I was trying all combinations, my norm is (.+?) and it was being too greedy..the all of a sudden it was behaving.)