[tex-implementors] Re: [tex-live] LM as the default outline font?

[Joachim Schrod]

>>>>> "PT" == Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk> writes:

PT> Frank Küster wrote:

PT> [snip]
>> It doesn't matter much what they say or do:  By convention, software
>> versions use integers (and even letters), not real numbers.  

PT> /Who's/ convention ?

The rest of the world?

Can one name any software package outside of the TeX world that uses
real numbers as version ids? I can't, sorry.
Can one name software packages that use ``integers (and even
letters) with separaters''? Yes, every software package that I ever
used that had a version identification, be it on VMS, Windows, MVS, or
Unix.

PT> If Staszek et all want to use a real-number based numbering
PT> convention, then that is their right, as package authors. If other
PT> software has problems as a result, then that software is probably
PT> considerably less flexible than it need to be.

PT> It seems to me (and now we're getting /really/ off-topic)
PT> that what we are seeing here is exactly the same type of
PT> coercive pressure as is used to "persuade" package authors to
PT> include some quasi-legal "Free software" licence in any package
PT> for which they are responsible.

You're barking up the wrong tree, and this seems more like a political
crusade against `those persuaders' than a rationale discourse of
version numbering. This thread started with the assertion that
lmfont's numbering scheme is _inconvenient_. It was asked why, and a
rationale answer was given. There was never the question what Staszek
has the right to do or not. -- I'm not a native English speaker; but I
would have hoped that you, as a native English speaker, know the
meaning of `inconvenient'. It's not to demand a change, it's about
asking for a change to be able to integrate lmfonts better with common
tools, in particular, with package management tools.

It's a pitty that one has to explicate that meaning of a common
English phrase to such a prominent member of the TeX community as you
are. C'mon, Phil, you can do better; why do you let yourself carried
away with such a topic? For my person, I would prefer to see us
developers be forthcoming to our downstream packagers, they are
important for the survival of TeX. (For the record: I know Staszek for
some time now; and he has always been forthcoming and respectful for
wishes of others if these were rationale. This is not a remark on his
actions or the version number, this is a remark on this mail thread.)

Best wishes,

	Joachim

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod					Email: jschrod at acm.org
Roedermark, Germany

	``How do we persuade new users that spreading fonts across the page
	like peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route to
	typographic excellence?''			-- Peter Flynn