TeX CD

[Ulrik Vieth]

Sebastian wrote:

> You will see that the distinction between "recommended" and "other" is
> really my personal judgement (with input from Thomas). I'd appreciate
> any (constructive!) thoughts to make this better. 

> doc1/makeindex
> doc1/general
> doc2/tugboat
> doc2/html
> doc2/info
> doc2/knuth

I'd consider moving doc/tugboat and possibly doc/knuth to category 3.  
Who's going to look at TUGboat contents other than ``hard-core TeXies''?
Same for {tex,mf}book.tex, webman or {trip,trap}man.

> generic3/genmisc

Hmm, not sure what's inside, but perhaps it includes some stuff deservers 
higher priority (cf. plain1/plainmisc)?

> fonts2/bakoma
> fonts2/cmbright
> fonts2/cmextra
> fonts2/concmath
> fonts2/concrete
> fonts2/ot2cyr
> fonts2/stmaryrd
> fonts2/wsuipa
> fonts2/psnfss

I'd more or less agree with that -- perhaps not with everything but
with most of it.  However, I see a problem here.  What use will be
fonts/concrete in category `2' when the supporting macros latex/beton
and latex/euler are in `3'.  Similarly, what use will be the macros 
in latex/mfnfss in `2' when the required fonts/pandora are in `3'.

This ought to be sorted out better and made more consistent.

> latex3/revtex

This is arguable depending on one's background.  In a physics department
latex/revtex is equally important as ams/amslatex or even much more so.
It might be a good idea to put all kinds of publisher macros in the same 
category to be fair to users in all fields.  However, I'm not sure myself
if they should go in category `2' or `3'. 

OK, these are my first quick comments.  I might look at the stuff on
CTAN:info/tdscd more closely later if I find the time.

Cheers, Ulrik.