[tex-live] enctex support files in texmf

Staszek Wawrykiewicz staw at gust.org.pl
Fri Jul 9 17:34:54 CEST 2004

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Thomas Esser wrote:

> I don't think that enctex's macro files should go to tex/enctex. Some
> are clearly for the plain format, others are generic. Here is what I
> have in teTeX-beta:

I noticed that last night when updating enctex from CTAN. As I understand
Fabrice's idea, enctex can be considered like mltex, etc., serving
to prepare specific _format_ file(s), thus tex/enctex at the same level
as amstex, mltex, plain, etc. Personally I'd prefer having it
in tex/generic/enctex but not spliting into tex/generic/enctex
and tex/plain/enctex. Thomas, for me there is no reason to split
such stuff into 2 directories, as "generic" is dedicated for macros
which can serve for any format. We can even use enctex extensions
for making latex format, I guess. 

Next example from the current teTeX-beta: tex/generic/epsf/epsf.tex and
tex/plain/dvips/ (the rest from generic dvips macros; e.g. rotate.tex
which could be usable in latex, why not?). btw. where are in teTeX
epsf.sty, etc.? I really do not see any reason for such spliting...

> doc/generic/enctex/unimap.diff
> doc/generic/enctex/unimap.py
Those files should rather go into source/generic/enctex/
(of course when "generic macros"  vs. "independent format stuff" 
would be acceptable ;-)

> doc/generic/enctex/vlna.tex
it should go to the input area

As you can see, it is sometimes very difficult to find out where
the files should go. It could be even more difficult to update
a package (esp. with some new files and other removed from the 
distribution), when the contents of that package has to be splited
into many directories. Having tex/generic is enough clear.


Staszek Wawrykiewicz
StaW at gust.org.pl

More information about the tex-live mailing list