Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Thu Feb 26 14:16:53 CET 2004
> Staszek Wawrykiewicz <StaW at gust.org.pl> writes on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 03:31:58 +0100 (CET):
> >> This is very strange: 1.09 already contains \LaTeXe, so 1.10
> >> added only a history comment.
> >> However there are more differences in definitions of \BibTeX,
> >> \SLiTeX and \AmSTeX, and in 1.10 \PiCTeX and \VorTeX were removed.
> >> ...
> Then the version 1.09 that you examined has been hacked without being
> renamed, and I take no responsibility for it. Please verify the
> % checksum -v texnames.sty
> The checksum verification of the input file texnames.sty was successful.
> A tampered file will produce this report if it has the expected
> comment header:
> % checksum -v tex-archive/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/6_4/texnames.sty
> The checksum verification of the input file tex-archive/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/6_4/texnames.sty did not succeed.
> and this if it cannot be parsed:
> % checksum -v tex-archive/macros/latex209/contrib/misc/texnames.sty
> The input file did not have the correct format.
that version looks as if it predates anything i've ever noticed from
you. presumably written by a french person, given the extraordinary
macro for gutenberg
fwiw, i'm renaming _my_ copy of texnames.sty (which i made in the 1994-
1995 timeframe) to stupid_names.sty (reflecting my advertised view of
these logos). perhaps i should have done this at the time, but it
didn't occur to me that it would be necessary.
the reason i hacked your version in the first place was that (a) it
didn't contain a latex2e logo, and it didn't work reliably with 2e
(because of the explicit \fam numbers, for example in the ams logos). i
pointed these problems out to you, at the time (cc barbara beeton,
iirc), and received no reply.
since you still haven't deigned to make the package latex2e-reliable
(nearly 10 years after i suggested the change to you), it's plainly time
for me to "decisively" diverge. sorry about the interim confusion.
i shall probably give up on logos for the next faq release but one, but
from the next release (in a day or so) the texnames.sty on
help/uk-tex-faq will be no more. this doesn't of course help the
historical copies of the faq under usergrps/uktug/<baskerville various>
but that (i fear) is the way the cookie crumbles.
More information about the tex-live