[tex-live] newalg

[Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard]

Robin Fairbairns a écrit :
> Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <mpg at elzevir.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Robin Fairbairns a écrit :
>>>> Looks like another case of old docstrip defaults :(.
> 
> (actually, that was karl)
> 
Oh, yes, sorry for my poor quoting.

> current docstrip doesn't do this; if it puts anything "extra" in the
> stripped file, it's what has been supplied (as \preamble ...
> \endpreamble) in the .ins file.

I'm sorry to disagree, but, trying at home (with a fully up-to-date TL'08):

mpg at roth:~/tl/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/newalg% cat newalg.ins
\def\batchfile{newalg.ins}
\input docstrip.tex

\keepsilent

\generateFile{newalg.sty}{f}{\from{newalg.dtx}{package}}
mpg at roth:~/tl/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/newalg% latex newalg.ins | grep
-i generating

Generating file(s) ./newalg.sty
mpg at roth:~/tl/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/newalg% head -n 25 newalg.sty
%%
%% This is file `newalg.sty',
%% generated with the docstrip utility.
%%
%% The original source files were:
%%
%% newalg.dtx  (with options: `package')
%%
%% IMPORTANT NOTICE:
%%
%% For the copyright see the source file.
%%
%% Any modified versions of this file must be renamed
%% with new filenames distinct from newalg.sty.
%%
%% For distribution of the original source see the terms
%% for copying and modification in the file newalg.dtx.
%%
%% This generated file may be distributed as long as the
%% original source files, as listed above, are part of the
%% same distribution. (The sources need not necessarily be
%% in the same archive or directory.)
\NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}[1994/06/01]
\ProvidesPackage{newalg}[1994/12/15 Format code algorithms nicely]

mpg at roth:~/tl/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/newalg%

Now, where does the statements right after "IMPORTANT NOTICE" (which
clearly look like licence statements) come from?

> thus, fulminations against the latex
> team aren't actually appropriate here (unless you're complaining that
> they made a mistake a while back, even though they've now corrected it).
> 
I wouldn't complain if the mistake was only back in time. Just that, in
my experience, the mistake doesn't look as fixed. Now, quoting FM from:

http://www.latex-project.org/cgi-bin/ltxbugs2html?pr=latex/4019&category=anything&responsible=anyone&state=anything&keyword=&search=

(sorry fro the long line):

> this text [mpg: docstrip's default preamble] appears *only* in your 
> file in two cases:
> 
>  a) if somebody decided to use it by not providing an alternate preamble
> 
> [...]
> 
> a) is a choice anybody can make

I disagree on this point. First, experience (I mean, actually contacting
the author and asking her about her intentions) proves that it's almost
never a conscious choice. Second and maybe more important, the
automatically inserted text depends on the settings on the computer
where the .ins file is processed, not on the author's setting, and thus
cannot have the slightest value about expressing the author's intentions.

(Of course, nothing personal in my "fulminations": I'm actually angry
about the problem, not against the persons. Sorry if it wasn't clear.)

> sure.  put it where current docstrip invents a preamble when the author
> hasn't supplied one.
> 
You mean, replacing lines 752 to 766 in docstrip.tex, (v 2.5d dated
2005/07/29)?

Of course I don't want to actually do it, just to illustrate the poor
legal value of any such automatic statement.

Manuel.

PS: I think the first part of the text, before "important notice" is enough:

%%
%% This is file `newalg.sty',
%% generated with the docstrip utility.
%%
%% The original source files were:
%%
%% newalg.dtx  (with options: `package')
%%

You read this you know it's a generated file and the actual licence
statement (if any) is to be searched in newalg.dtx. Period.