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 - letters - 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 at it * 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 people. 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. sebastian