Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> i suggest that going beyond my 3 - way is too hard. so
> * we don't have any choice about 1; its what They give us
> * by default everything is in 3, ie useful if you feel like looking
> at it
> * things go into 2 by acclamation; its a staging post to 1, if you
> like. things like carlisle, calc, fancyhdr, and cite seem obviously
> useful on any system, whereas nassflow is probably only used by 3
Maybe 3 should be split into two categories:
3: Package is documented (!), reasonably stable, and is deemed the best,
or one of the best, packages for the intended purpose. Yet the
application is too specific that one could reasonably expect
every distribution of TeX to carry it.
Example: tipa as opposed to some other phonetic alphabets.
> one thing i can promise is that if anyone does classify LaTeX
> packages, i will instantiate it on TeX Live. please note that the TeX
> Live coding is present in Graham Williams catalogue, so thats an
> excellent place to encapsulate the decisions.
Further, it might be useful to introduce some independent categories
for user information, e.g.
L: works under LaTeX
OL: works under LaTeX 2.09
P: works under plain TeX
X: support application, OS specific
etc., also---as suggested by Sebastian---some classification scheme by
topic (independent of the 1 to 4 above). I'll add some more:
- useful general hacks
- class files for publishers and journals
- other class files
- font related
- language related
- packages for special applications: Chemistry, Computer Science,
Mathematics, Physics etc.
PS: Where are the AMS macros/fonts in the category 2 list suggested