[tex-live] Re: tex *live* packages [was: .. acronym package missing doc]

[Sebastian Rahtz]

> 
> If the package contains .mf sources and/or type1 .pfb files, it belongs
> to font stuff. So Hans would be happy using them also in ConTeXt...
>  
> 
What if its primary job is to provide a LaTeX package,
and adds a font with one character to support that?


>>um, that implies _reading_ the README. sorry, no time for that/
> 
> 
> So packages still have to be tested and... corrected. Again and again
> for every release.

yes, but the decisions taken must be recorded. otherwise you 
have to retest all packages every time...

> Please tell us how as far it is done:
> 1. e.g. TL depot contains correct package layout and contents
> 2. the package is then updated on CTAN, so do you make it again from the 
>    scratch for TL? If not, what about additions/deletions in the new 
>    version (example: doublestroke was previously without type1 fonts, now
>    we have them, but unfortunatelly .map file wasn't added to TL).

when I get a message from CTAN about a package update, I 
download it, run the sausage machine, and reinstall the 
package in TL

> To conclude: the metadata file for every package should be made for CTAN
> at first place. It can serve for _any_ distribution, as well as for CTAN
> searching/indexing tools.  Should be obligatory for any new package
> upload.

well, precisely. this is what we decided to do a year ago in 
Bremen. But we have not made any progress on it.


> Things to do:
> 1. good and complete specification for such metadata file
> 2. finding a team for rechecking the current stuff, according to clear
>    criteria.

agreed. that was why I circulated the TPM2 material last 
March for comment.

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      Information Manager
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431