[lltx] luatexbase

[Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard]

Khaled Hosny a écrit :
> OK, I can understand that :) ConTeXt-derived code is API unstable and I
> think Hans has to plans to stabilize it prior LuaTeX 1.0 (and I can
> understand this too :)
> 
Right, and that's another reason for having our own copy of that code, so we can
handle the API changes.

>> For example, the version of fontspec supporting LuaTeX is not
>> release to CTAN, hence widely tested, yet, unless I'm mistaken.
> 
> Right, mostly because luaotfload isn't done enough yet. Once we manage
> to properly implement a font names database, LuaTeX part of Fontspec 2.0
> should be almost done, bugs aside, but then I doubt we will be able to
> upload to CTAN since it is unlikely to work with LuaTeX in TeXlive.
> 
Well, sorry for being the "pessimistic" guy again, but "bugs aside" can be quite
a big restriction, and I'm afraid we can expect surpises when people start
trying it on various systems with various fonts, doing various weird things :-)

Concerning TL, I'll discuss with Karl if we can just blacklist lualatex stuff
from our update detection script, so that we can update to CTAN: it would make
things easier to test for more users, and I think we'll need testing.

> My approach is that to expect the user to be using the latest
> (development) versions of, what I consider, LuaLaTeX bundle, which
> includes right now: luatextra, luaotfload, euenc, fontspec and
> luainputenc, together with latest luatex binary. Any other combination
> is untested and hence unsupported. This way, IMO, we save ourselves lots
> of multiple versions and compatibility headache
> 
Agreed.

> Later on, once a certain level of functionality is reached, we can setup
> our texlive repository, lualatex-dev or whatever, and ask interested
> users to test it, later (my goal is TeXlive 2010) we can declare it
> stable enough and advertise it to regular users.
> 
FYI, plans are to release TL10 earlier than previous years.

> I strongly believe that tight cooperation between the related packages
> will save us LaTeX package incompatibility hell, like the way latex3
> packages are developed for example.
> 
200% agreed.

> I'd rather try to expose the user to as less packages as possible, like
> the way xltxtra abstract the user from several packages,

Sure, it's also the way I see things: many packages for the developpers who want
to minimise dependencies etc, but only one package for the user. That's exactly
what I was suggesting with lltxtra.

> and I'd also
> try to use less confusing names (I like unicode-math for example).

I agree.

> May I
> suggest "unicode-latex" as a meta package that would take car of loading
> various XeTeX or LuaTeX packages for the user? (it should essentially be
> xltxra with LuaTeX support for the time being).
> 
I don't like "unicode-latex" so much, since I'm not sure it is clear that
"unicode" means XeTeX or LuaLaTeX.

Manuel.