Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:04:43 +0200
On 31.08.2014 22:09, Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>> So I guess you have to bite the bullet and remove the calls to
>> individual files as it really don't make any sense to provide empty
>> .sty files just to support the above scenario
> Hm.. I didn't even think of that. But actually, it makes perfect
> sense. Have those files do nothing but print a deprecation warning.
> Keep them around for a year, and maybe then remove them.
perhaps we should do that. On the other hand if it is just a warning in
the log then chances are we will be in the same boat next year. Still ...
> I will fix my own packages now, of course. But can you be sure I am
> the only one to have made this mistake?
no, but you are so far the only person who raised the point - whatever
this proves :-)
Guess it is easy enough to provide semi empty .sty files with a warning
so I guess we should probably follow your suggestion