[tex-live] suitability for inclusion in TeX Live

[Gavin McCullagh]

Hi,

thanks for the speedy reply.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Karl Berry wrote:

> Is wnri maintained?  

It appears doubtful alright.  I'm not a metafont expert though so I'm not
sure if I'd be a good person to maintain the package.

>     it would mean our school need not install it as a customisation
>     each time.  
> 
> FWIW, this would not be needed anyway.  You can install stuff in a
> parallel texmf-local tree that is not touched (but is nevertheless used)
> by new releases.  This is the recommended approach for local additions,
> and the manual goes into some detail about it.

This is what we do.  However, we have lots of laptops, etc aside from the
central installation.  I've tried on occasion copying the full texmf-local
over but something always seems to get broken.  This is quite likely my
fault of course.  

It's just handy in my opinion to have as much as possible in the standard
install and keep texmf-local to a minimum.  Again being entirely selfish,
it minimises the number of tricks and customisations which our school needs
to maintain independently.

> The biggest issue is licensing.  In this case, some of the wnri files
> have no copyright, but the ones that do say GPL, so that is good.  It
> would be best if every file said GPL, but we don't need to be that
> persnickety about it.

Fair enough.  I'l try and chase the last maintainer.

>     Would wngbr fit?
> 
> It is small, so I don't see a problem with adding it.
> 
> It'd be best for your updates to get onto CTAN first, but we can
> manually tweak them in if need be.

I see.  I'll do that then to start things off.  Can you point me to a doc on
submitting a package?  Are we talking basically about a tarball with
source, tfm, sty, etc relative to the texmf/ directory?

Gavin