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 frank