Mark Steinberger writes:
> Clear criteria for classification might be useful, here.
well, thats the nub of the problem, isn't it. there is an alternative,
which is to categorize by type, eg
- useful general hacks
- class files for publishers and journals
- font related
but i personally don't find that helpful - we still need some way of
deciding which ones to tell eg Thomas Esser or Eberhard Mattes to
distribute to everyone.
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
* 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
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.