LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:09:52 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Werner LEMBERG <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: Text/Plain (1 lines)

>> The changed files are used only to generate PDF documentation for
>> one of my packages (ttfautohint), which heavily uses the most
>> recent script additions to Unicode; they are not intended for
>> distribution in a generic way.  As soon as the corresponding
>> changes are applied upstream, I will use the upstream packages.
>> However, I can't estimate in advance when updated packages
>> appear...
> 
> Er... are you sure that you understand each other?

I think so, yes.

> It seems to me that you, Werner, are saying that you’re not going to
> distribute the files under their original names, and will just use a
> temporary solution until the changes are propagated to the
> distributions;

Yes, for example in my package's version 1.7 I plan to use
`fontspec-patched.sty'.

> while Frank is saying that since you plan to distribute the files
> you should stick to the policy of changing their names.

Yes.  Where is the contradiction?  Assuming that at the time of my
package's version 1.8 the upstream version of `fontspec.sty' contains
the patches I need, I no longer use `fontspec-patched.sty'.


   Werner

ATOM RSS1 RSS2