LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  July 1997

LATEX-L July 1997

Subject:

Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals)

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:59:41 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

Sebastian Rahtz writes:
 > > i think this goes a bit out of hand and in different directions:
 > > originally the suggestion was to collect class files that are around,
 > > now we are talking about classifying the whole LaTeX universe.
 >
 > its sometimes not easy to distinguish pure class files from other
 > paraphernalia?

true there are grey areas but in most cases it is trivial enough
(something ending in .cls .... :-)

 > > collecting class files means not only looking at CTAN but actively
 > > asking publishers (somehow) to give their class files out if they have
 > > any. many publishers do have class files that they send to people on
 > > request.
 > others, like us, actively do not distribute their real working class
 > files...

too bad in which cases yours will not be on CTAN and will not get
there. but the starting point was that people would like to have more
cls files at their hands and that there are more out there then most
people know and or have access to.

 > > * 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.

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 :-)

what i wanted 5 for is stuff that fails with 2e --- no further check

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


 > > * by default everything goes to 4 (which mean uncheck, might not
 > > work with current LaTeX)
 > you are approaching this from a 3rd direction, which is whether things
 > *work*.

so did you see below. and without that test at least in its basic form
i think the whole exercise is pointless

 > > an active process, eg one way as i see this could happen is a
 > > couple of volunteers with a coordinator is taking the current
 > > ctan dirs in chunks and check the packages/class styles, write
 > > one para for each that seems to work and sends this finding to
 > > the coordinator.
 > thats a hell of a lot of work, and not particularly robust or even
 > useful. what I want to know is will package X work with my package Y,
 > and the volunteer tester is not going to find that out for me.

no that can't be easily achieved i agree. but the minimal check is
already a big plus (the one you said you used for tex-live) and that
and nothing more i was suggesting

 > my test for TeX Live is whether it runs its own documentation and test
 > files. i threw out half a dozen packages on this criterion - if they
 > don't work internally i am not interested in them at all. this also
 > provides the test `does it run against current release, as opposed to
 > release when they wrote it'

but this is exactly what i suggested, everything starts out at *4 (ie
unchecked) then

  - test if it works on itself (ie documentation runs through, example
    comes out ...)

  - test if it works with current release

if either of those fails then it goes into *5 otherwise it goes into
*3 plus a line to the coordinator what it does (or a form filled out
that has been agreed on containing some classification info as far as
it can be determined easily)

of course most important is that it works on its own, for example
xymtex (chemistry) does really work very nicely (see Graphics
companion :-) but its documentation needs 209 compatibility code. that
would be good enough to go to *3 although i (if i would be the tester)
would suggest to the author to change \documentstyle ->
\documentclass.

in fact that one should go in my opinion to 2-applications (after the
process of acclamation that would need to be established)

and even if it would balk at \footheight unknown or something like
this in the documentation (but only there) i would (as a tester) put
it into *3 but having in that form a line saying, documentation a bit
shaky press return on ...

 > > with the suggestion that 2-general should be always included
 > > into a distribution but 2-applications as well if there is a bit
 > > of space left.
 > thats a fair distinction

woah, at least one thing finding your approval :-)

frank

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager