[tex-live] Grrr... what has happened with lambda/lamed,
antomega and ushyphen.tex???
akrioukov at newmail.ru
Sun Sep 25 21:52:45 CEST 2005
On Sunday 25 September 2005 22:56, you wrote:
> All I know is that the previous file mentioned, ruhyph.tex, does not
> exist at all. So we have to replace it with something, or comment it
> out the entry. I don't care which (or what it's replaced with),
> myself. I have no idea whether it will actually work.
In fact ruhyph.tex is an alias for ruhyphen.tex. So this entry
doesn't break anything by itself. Of course this fact doesn't
make it more useful.
> That was the one thing which I thought we had all agreed on. But
> apparently it's not happening this year.
Well, really? I had an impression that most participants of this
discussion finally have supported Hans' opinion:
> hyphenation pattersn may be engine specific (tex vs omega) but they
> are also macro package specific (since they can contain macros),
> actually, many of the pattern files under generic are not generic at
> all; i see no reason why antomega patterns should be generic;
In fact, I even would not argue with this (may be, except pointing
out that the hyphenation patterns by A. Syropoulos, currently
distributed with lambda, are no more or less "generic" than those
provided by antomega). That I really want, is just to store
compiler-specific files separately from the language support
package itself (since without knowing how to do that I can't repackage
> I was talking about the difference between last year and this year,
> which is almost nothing, AFAIK. John and Yannis left it a long time
> before that. (A new release is always possible, but has not
> materialized, as I'm sure you know better than anyone. Maybe Yannis'
> new group, or John's new research project, will come to fruition one
> of these days.)
Well, I have never used TL (probably this is my mistake), so I can
compare only teTeX 3 with teTeX 2, and I see several quite strange
modifications in directory structure between these versions. Even if we
leave apart the changes caused by changes in TDS, I still don't
understand why so many files inside the lambda directory were moved
to different locations. For example, ocherokee and oinuit are surely
standalone packages; so, why the corresponding directories were removed
and the files were placed to lambda/base? Files from lambda/misc were
moved to lambda/base as well, although they even haven't TeX syntax (and
thus should be left in texmf/omega according to TDS 1.1).
To my mind, these particular changes look illogical (can anybody
explain why they were needed?). So I meant to say that omega-specific
packages (they are few) need more care just to prevent such undesired
Alexej Kryukov <akrioukov at newmail dot ru>
Moscow State University
More information about the tex-live