Michel Lavaud writes: > > Are you all familar with Graham Williams catalogue? in many ways, he > > has already laid the foundation for what we are talking about, with a > > BiBTeX database looking like this: > > I think it is extremely useful to have the TeXIndex of Jones updated. > But I am not sure that the texlive key, with the contents described > above, is a good idea? David Jones hasn't got the time/inclination/something or other. I asked him some while back, and he said he was quite happy for the file to be zapped from the archives. I had forgotten to do that, and have just moved it to obsolete/help The reason the texlive key is there is that the file is also used (as a BibTeX file, no less!) in preparing the TeX Live documentation. The key doesn't appear in the other derived format, CTAN help/Catalogue/ctfull.html > "Not a 'must have'" seems to me usselessly aggressive to the package > writer, at least if Graham's document is publicly released. It depends how you interpret the phrase. I would claim that it's pretty readily interpreted as `take this if you want it, but it's not part of a standard distribution'. > Moreover, > if somebody wants to do something and the "xyz" package > exactly does what he needs, what is the use for him to know that the > package has been classified by somebody as a "not a must have"? > And for those who are not interested in what "xyz" package does, > getting an opinion on it is useless too. So, why giving any opinion > at all ? Give an opinion if you want to classify, don't if you don't. Don't try to classify without giving any opinion: that way lies madness... > And cataloging a package as "generally agreed important application" > is not very serious, is it ? As it will reflect the opinion of, from > one individual (for many packages) to ten (say hundred for the > "bestof" package) individuals, out of hundreds of thousands of users > (somebody spoke about 20 billions). No-one's talked about billions of users yet, have they? There are only 100 million PCs (or something) in the world! > I am not sure that users really need opinions. I think they need > much more an exhaustive catalog, as the original TeXIndex is, > updated and with improved abstracts and demo files. Once they have > it, they can decide by themselves if the package is useful for them > or not. This is precisely what Graham's stuff gives us. We're very lucky that he was willing to take up the baton when David Jones had to give it up. > If people have free time to discuss about a package, and have an > opinion at the end, I suppose they will have written a set of test > files? Therefore, I would propose that they release their test > files, without emitting any opinion, instead of emitting an opinion > and no test files. And, about the texlive key, replace it by a > pointer to these test files ? As I said, the texlive key performs an entirely different function. I didn't read this discussion as claiming that these cataloguers were going to construct test suites, or anything of the sort. I'm happy that the cataloguers `merely' collect opinions and distill them into a digestible form, as Graham Williams has already started to do. In my view, a project to construct a test suite for every package on CTAN is doomed to failure. (For some reason, my fingers kept wanting to type `dodo' where I meant `doomed' ;-) Robin F