Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:15:53 +0100
> > > * 5 does definitely not work with current LaTeX (after checking)
> > in that case it would not be kept on CTAN! i dont see the point
> well, what a good point. only problem is that many such things
> are. when i started my private survey i even found document styles for
> version 2.08 on CTAN and i bet they are still there.
It's a great pity that you didn't tell us about this stuff! We do
have an area for "this is totally unusable in present circumstances",
even if it wasn't felt reasonable to delete the thing.
> there are reasons for keeping at least some of those in 5 nevertheless
> a) might be 2.09
> b) we might keep the work as eventually somebody might upgrade them
> c) historians might welcome it :-)
I can (just about) understand the reasoning that says we keep 2.09-
only stuff. Personally, I would move it all to the obsolete tree --
(b) is justification for keeping it, I suppose.
My take is that CTAN is _not_ an historical archive, and that (c) is
> what i wanted 5 for is stuff that fails with 2e --- no further check
What _we_ (CTAN) want is to prune out useless stuff. It would be
_really_ nice to reverse the present monotonic increase in CTAN's
> once all the available material is classified in that way the CTAN
> people could still decide to throw those out on into a
> veryobsoletestuff directory or whatever. point is unless somebody goes
> through all the stuff that is out there on CTAN we will never catch
> that stuff
It happens, from time to time. We got some `proper' fonts the other
day and realised the previous versions were (effectively) useless, so
we obsoleted them.
Therefore, input from those who know (that archived stuff is
effectively useless) is always very welcome. I would encourage people
to mail [log in to unmask] about these things...